Australia, New Zealand urge Japan to respect anti-whaling ban

Japan does not have a lot of friends, the quest to fill freezers with unpalatable fat can only lead to the loss of what friends Japan has left. Utter stupidity to push for an industry that requires propping up from tax payers money and further isolates Japan internationally. The cultural argument requires a serious head injury to be believed as serious.

Tokyo called off its 2014-15 Antarctic season after the ICJ’s decision, and said it would redesign the mission in a bid to make it more scientific.

So, there is another lie! Yesterday Abe was calling it 'commercial whaling'! Japan has just got to get used to the idea that their whaling ships are not welcome in the southern oceans and they never will be. If they breech the ICJ injunction and head back to the southern oceans to hunt whales commercially they will be criminal poachers. They are not YOUR whales Japan! They belong to the world and if you want to kill them you should be paying the rest of the world to do so.

Stay with coastal whaling and tell the world to get lost. Factory ships in Antarctic waters is a farce guaranteed to waste both money and good will.

It is ridiculous, true, but one of the few issues on which Japan can assert its individuality.

Abe your a frigging idiot! No one eats whale anymore just the old farts like Abe and his staff.

I would say the chances of Japan respecting an anti-whaling ban are about the same as the pirates on the Sea Shepard respecting international maritime laws. Pretty much zero....

The decision of the ICJ laid down clear guidelines for any research whaling activities in the future.

So what's all the complaining about if Japan abides by these clear guidelines?

So what's all the complaining about if Japan abides by these clear guidelines?

Because whaling is unneccesary, objectionable and archaic. It belongs in the past, not the present or the future.

Wakarimasen: "It is ridiculous, true, but one of the few issues on which Japan can assert its individuality."

Yeah, in the Southern Ocean! Abe is literally telling the nationals of this country who do not like the stuff that it is their culture, and indirectly saying they must pay for it despite not wanting it so that he can earn a few points with radicals who react angrily to people who rightly point out it has nothing to do with science at all. I really think this is just more about Abe taking pressure of Japan and the government on the comfort women issue -- the world easily responds to Japan's whaling under the guise of science, so it's the perfect chance to distract them.

What if Abe went against the U.N. court order banning whale hunting in Antarctic waters and let's say some military from Australia or New Zealand sank the hunting ship. I wonder how Abe would respond to that. Since he doesn't want to respect the count, Australia and New Zealand doesn't seem to have any problems sinking the hunting ship.

It is important for Japan to honor the International Court's decision - whether one agrees with it or not. A law-abiding nation or person doesn't pick and choose what legislation/ rulings we abide by . . .

People, only Jarpa 2 was ruled illegal. People celebrated too early and perhaps failed to fully understand the pride aspects connected to this issue. Japan will redesign its whaling program and release Jarpa 3, and that has always been the plan once Jarpa 2 was declared illegal. The Japanese will not go to the southern oceans this year out of respect for the ruling that was made on Jarpa 2 and will come up with a new scientific program (so-called) that gets around the objections made by the international court. They can follow the ruling of the court and make sure their next program is harder to overrule. The whaling in the southern oceans will continue.

The taxpayer will continue to fund this foolish loss-making whaling program because this is an issue of national pride and the government here is right-wing in its leanings. They don't care what Australians and Kiwis think, they have decided their "culture" is under attack, which means never-ending amounts of money can be spent subsidising more whaling programs. Having come up with a program that cannot be outlawed on grounds of fake science, the Japanese government will up the pressure on Sea Shepherd and demand more international condemnation of SS. I wish the Japanese would give this up, but they won't. It is virtually impossible to beat the Japanese at the long game.

Stay with coastal whaling and tell the world to get lost. Factory ships in Antarctic waters is a farce guaranteed to waste both money and good will.

I think this is probably the best course of action for Japan.

Australia and New Zealand doesn't (sic) seem to have any problems sinking the hunting ship.

Yeah right. That will never happen. The very fact that you long for armed conflict over a few harvested cetaceans shows that you really need to get a grip.

Abe can be best described as a "stone head" ("ishi atama") and he'll always try to find a way to contradict anyone who doesn't think the same way he does.

“As a country that places a high value on its good international citizenship, we hope and expect that Japan will continue to respect the ICJ decision.”

no fact denying, Japan betrayed six party members and are now engaged in bilateral talks with North Korea, also immediately after G7 declared more sanction on Russia, Abe said he will engage in discussion with Putin...so where one can find high values, good international citizenship...?

It is virtually impossible to beat the Japanese at the long game.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

Japanese consumers are beating Japanese whalers...

Take this evening, for example... what percentage of Japanese consumers are planning a slap up whale supper?

The whale-tasting event Abe attended seems almost ironic.

Japanese politicians eat the whale at the promo event, say it is delicious and culturally important but then never touch the stuff until the next promo event a year or two later...

zichiJun. 10, 2014 - 04:09PM JST

I think it is high time you stop that "the research whaling should be ended because it is not COMMERCIALLY profitable."

FangWannasiriJun. 10, 2014 - 05:18PM JST

What if Abe went against the U.N. court order banning whale hunting in Antarctic waters

As hamption wrote, ICJ ruled that Japan should stop JARPA2 and JARPA2 only. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18136.pdf

Decides that Japan shall revoke any extant authorization, permit or licence granted in relation to JARPA II, and refrain from granting any further permits in pursuance of that programme. (page 72)

One of the criticism against JARPA2 was the program actually killed too small number of whales.

226 These problems with the design of JARPA II must also be considered in light of its implementation. First, no humpback whales have been taken, and Japan cites non-scientific reasons for this. Secondly, the take of fin whales is only a small fraction of the number that the JARPA II Research Plan prescribes. Thirdly, the actual take of minke whales has also been far lower than the annual target sample size in all but one season.

When implementing JARPA3, the researchers should kill as many as planned.

Australia and New Zealand on Tuesday called on Japan to respect a U.N. court order banning whale hunting in Antarctic waters

The court DID NOT ban whale hunting in the Antarctic waters. The court ruled that the JARPAII research plan and its implementation were flawed.

The two countries hauled Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2010

No. Australia took Japan before the ICJ in 2010. New Zealand join at virtually the last minute after the plan that New Zealand backed which would have allowed Japan to continue hunting in Antarctic waters with a reduced quota and other regulations was defeated in the IWC.

The commercial hunting of whales is prohibited in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary

A sanctuary that was established in violation of the IWC's own regulations. And a sanctuary that a report commissioned by the IWC's own Scientific Committee has said serves no purpose. Oh and a sanctuary that does not prohibit Japan from commercially hunting Minke whales within it's boundaries.

However, Japan had been hunting the animals there under a “scientific research” loophole

And again. It is not a loophole. Article VIII existed almost 4 decades before the moratorium and is an original and integral part of the ICRW. It is kind of hard to write a loophole for a regulatioin that doesn't yet exist.

if it goes commercial then the flow of public funds should also stop and let those who want it also pay for it, in real terms,

Totally agree. Return it to a strictly commercial enteprise with no government support. If there really is a viable market then it will survive, if not the it will wither away.

breech the ICJ injunction

The ICJ injunction covers JARPAII. A new research plan written and implemented with the guidance of the ICJ ruling is allowed. In fact the ICJ ruling explicitely contemplates just such a new plan, hence why it contains guidlelines for one.

They belong to the world and if you want to kill them you should be paying the rest of the world to do so.

Sorry that it not what the UN says and it is not how internation law works. The UN basically says resources in international waters belong to whoever collects them.

Because whaling is unneccesary, objectionable and archaic.

And those are all opinions that obviously aren't held by everyone.

What if Abe went against the U.N. court order banning whale hunting in Antarctic waters and let's say some military from Australia or New Zealand sank the hunting ship. I wonder how Abe would respond to that. Since he doesn't want to respect the count, Australia and New Zealand doesn't seem to have any problems sinking the hunting ship.

The court DID NOT ban whaling in Antarctic waters. If Australian or New Zealand military vessels sank a whaling ship it would be an act of war.

I don't see any pro whaling comments by many if any Japanese (in translation of course) which may mean they don't give a hoot about it one way or another.

choiwaruoyaji, in my humble opinion, the shortage of consumers is irrelevant when an industry is sustained by tax money. Whale is a niche market and the "industry" requires huge subsidies to survive, so is around 95% subsidized. Despite these facts the current government is pushing on with Jarpa 3 and a new program that gets around the ruling made against Jarpa 2. The meat they catch can end up in school lunches, be force-fed to hospital patients or stored up in huge freezers all paid for by tax-payers. The shortage of genuine consumers means very little unfortunately. It is clear that these Antarctic expeditions cannot exist without taxpayers' money, but the government is ramping up the tax money to be spent on Jarpa 3. There are hordes of bureaucrats working on this program already. I've met some of them! I'm afraid the end of whaling is not in sight. It will take years for Jarpa 3 to end up in front of the international court and if it does end up there and get defeated, work will begin on Jarpa 4. Extremists like Abe and the oyaji who run Japan will never give up on this as they have decided foreigners are attacking their culture. I wish they would give up, but they won't.

Im pro whaling. Its very sad when I go fishing and I cannot see any fish only because thats a whale procreation area.

@Mike O Brien

The court DID NOT ban whaling in Antarctic waters. If Australian or New Zealand military vessels sank a whaling ship it would be an act of war.

South Pacific is not a South Japan Sea. So far there is no navy ships from Au and Nz have collied with Japanese whaling vessels. However Sea Shepherd have been water cannoned by Japanese whaling ships. They have collied with whaling ships in last year. Military is not civilian! If there is any exchange of fire between vessels, it will be no turning back.

If there will be replacement of human blood required for saving that mother nature gifts spilling blood, there will be volunteer army is waiting for joining. If it can be called as an act of war, let it be. By the way, Aust Navy has purchased the Japanese sub marines technology. It may be used for experimenting with Japanese whaling ships before the confrontation with imaginable enemy.

I wonder if Abe will actually attempt to revive this money losing blubber-fest, or if this is just pandering to the electorate. He may be thinking of playing both sides here.

On one side of the fence, he has the voters to think of. I have plenty of Japanese friends who openly and unabashedly say that they don't care if whaling loses money or if nobody eats it..."It's a Japanese right and nobody should be able to tell us what to do" (verbatim from one student). So by acting like a belligerent right winger, he appeases his voters.

But he is surely also concerned about international opinion as that could affect trade and the success of "Abenomics." Perhaps then, as the current international outcry passes over and the locals forget all about it, he'll drag his heels, effectively killing the program and appeasing the international community. If this is his strategy, then he's pretty politically savvy. If not, well, we're back where we started.

That's why politicians like these are known as moneysucking sociopathic oyaji who keeps bringing the same old issue again instead representing their country in more dignified manners. So far they seem just as childish and petty as their neighbour government. They could've done something more beneficial like revising the tax schemes but nope, this is more important. It's quite frustrating to observe the great country gradually falling off the global scene because of Abe's questionable spending of budgets.

“Australia and New Zealand on Tuesday called on Japan to respect a U.N. court order banning whale hunting in Antarctic waters, after Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he would increase efforts to restart the commercial activity.”

Japan’s policy makers should listen to the voices uttered by Australia and New Zealand carefully. These two countries are allies and friends to Japan for years, and these two governments’ views and concerns on Japan’s intent to circumvent ICJ’s ruling are wide supported by their general public.

Japan’s commercial whaling industry is a sunset industry, without government financial (taxpayers’ tax yen) support, it won’t last long given that today not many of Japanese depend on the protein provided from whale meats.

Ignoring the calls made by Australia and New Zealand will not only strain ties between Japan and them but also damage Japan’s image in the world. It's a lose-lose deal, why could Abe's admin be wised up ?

Australia and New Zealand on Tuesday called on Japan to respect a U.N. court order banning whale hunting in Antarctic waters,

LOL. Japan and respect for international rules that they don't like are an oxymoron. They always adhere to the letter of the law, after exploiting any possible loopholes, of course, not the spirit. Remember, Japan is special, and needs to be treated as such.

@Octagon

I was responding to a comment (which I quoted) that asked what would happen if Australian or New Zealand military vessels sank a whaling ship.

I know miltary is not civilian. Please read my whole comment before responding to it.

Oh and the Sea Shepherds have their own water cannons that they use against the Japanese whalers. The Sea Shepherds also have rammed their fair share of whaling vessels. They also fire flares at them and launch glass bottle full of acid.

on Japan’s intent to circumvent ICJ’s ruling

Japan's intent is to follow the ICJ's ruling. It is Australia and New Zealand that seem to want the ruling to mean things that it clearly does not.

Ignoring the calls made by Australia and New Zealand

The calls be Australia and New Zealand have been ignored for over 25 years. And yet the ties between them and Japan have only strengthened over that time.

Mike O'Brien is one of the few who is posting the truth. The vast majority of anti-whaling comments are based on a misunderstanding, unintentional or otherwise, of the facts. The ICJ ruling did NOT prohibit ay Research Whaling in the subject Antarctic waters, it simply prohibited the current program JARPA II, and even made clear a pathway to amending the issues in a new program that would be in compliance with the ICJ's view. Meaning, if Japan proceeded it would withstand any further attempts to stop it at the ICJ. Australia may well have chased out the current program at the expense of opening up it's entire backyard. What is not brought up in these "media" stories is the extent to which territorial issues are a large part of Australia and New Zealand's position, ie; their claims to Antarctic territories which are not recognized by most of the world. Without that, these nations would not care about the Japanese research whaling in these waters, as evidenced by the often repeated call that they should go back to whaling only in their own waters. In a world where the global population is growing and natural resources are diminishing, there exists no rational reason to object to the sustainable use of any non-endangered marine resource. If you remove any emotional reason to be anti-whaling, or anti-Japan anything, and all the misconceptions and fallacies surrounding this issue, there really is no reason left to even care about this issue.

when the decision of ICJ is good for Japan, we can use it, such as the disputes territories, when it is harm to Japan, we can discard it.

So Good!

Japan is keeping the law.Get real!

Even if you remove any perfectly valid compassionate reasoning, anti-Japanese sentiments etc, there remains the moral, environmental, animal welfare and economic issues all of which stake up against whaling.

To put it simply, if they did what they did to whales to other large mammals they would face criminal charges. Society is current evolving to consider what rights other species should have in the world our species has come to dominate.

There are also many "economic issues" involved but I am specifically pointing to the policies of party sponsored capitalism, not even government sponsored capitalism (I am being specific to the LDP here), which used to rig votes for them in rural areas, and the damage to Japan's PR.

It causes more damage to the whole of Japan than any financial benefit it might bring a few capitalists.

Therefore there are many valid reasons to be concerned and condemn the practise.

Mike O'Brien is one of the few who is posting the truth...The ICJ ruling did NOT prohibit ay Research Whaling in the subject Antarctic waters, it simply prohibited the current program JARPA II, and even made clear a pathway to amending the issues in a new program that would be in compliance with the ICJ's view. Meaning, if Japan proceeded it would withstand any further attempts to stop it at the ICJ.

Could not have said it better. I'd like to add that Japan is required to get its new program sanctioned by the ICJ, in which case Australia would have very little to say if the whaling continues with international approval.

What is not brought up in these "media" stories is the extent to which territorial issues are a large part of Australia and New Zealand's position, ie; their claims to Antarctic territories which are not recognized by most of the world. Without that, these nations would not care about the Japanese research whaling in these waters, as evidenced by the often repeated call that they should go back to whaling only in their own waters. In a world where the global population is growing and natural resources are diminishing, there exists no rational reason to object to the sustainable use of any non-endangered marine resource. If you remove any emotional reason to be anti-whaling, or anti-Japan anything, and all the misconceptions and fallacies surrounding this issue, there really is no reason left to even care about this issue.

Spot on.

Mike O'Brien is one of the few who is posting the truth. The vast majority of anti-whaling comments are based on a misunderstanding, unintentional or otherwise, of the facts.

Ossan -- nonsense. That is YOUR OPINION. You are choosing to ignore the obvious. Japan has NO INTENT of conducting truly necessary or important research. Any research they do is simply to disguise a completely commercial intent -- to kill as many whales as they can and call it "research". Or was Abe's statement not clear enough for you? Sorry, but that was NOT the ICJ's intent.

Ossan: "The vast majority of anti-whaling comments are based on a misunderstanding..."

It's not 'misunderstanding' when you're caught in a lie, Ossan, as 'regrettable' as that may be to you.

Japan has NO INTENT of conducting truly necessary or important research. Any research they do is simply to disguise a completely commercial intent -- to kill as many whales as they can and call it "research".

jerseyboy -- nonsense. That is YOUR OPINION. You are choosing to ignore the clear wording (i.e. FACT) of the ICJ ruling and the clear wording of the IWC's moratorium (i.e. FACT) that requires research and reanalysis of species data every 10 years for possible REMOVAL from the protection of the moratorium.

Sorry, but that was NOT the ICJ's intent.

If that was not the ICJ's intent, why did they include in their ruling a discussion of what any new research plan would have to include to meet the ICJ's ruling? If future research whaling wasn't their intent why include directions on how to write a future research plan? It clearly was the intent and belief that research whaling would continue.

jerseyboyJun. 10, 2014 - 11:47PM JST Ossan -- nonsense. That is YOUR OPINION. You are choosing to ignore the obvious. Japan has NO INTENT of >conducting truly necessary or important research. Any research they do is simply to disguise a completely commercial >intent -- to kill as many whales as they can and call it "research". Or was Abe's statement not clear enough for you? >Sorry, but that was NOT the ICJ's intent.

Sorry but your post is a perfect example of what I call "misunderstanding" the issues. The Research is sanctioned by the IWC for the purpose of gathering data. Without that data the IWC Scientific committee can not establish population numbers upon which it will make recommendations. Without those Scientific Committee recommendations, commercial whaling regardless of how limited in scope can not be restored. In other words since the article says that Abe wants to see Commercial whaling restored, Japan has no choice BUT to conduct actual research and submit the results to the IWC. Your comment that Japan has no intent to conduct research makes no sense at all.

If ABE continues to defy ICJ then eventually it will loose court's confidence as a leader who is supposed to be setting examples. Any future foreign issues that may require International ruling may not go favorably for Japan. Mr ABE must drop the Tokko (attack unit) style and stop scoring points with Japan conservatives

If ABE continues to defy ICJ

He IS NOT defying the ICJ. The ICJ clearly intended and believed that future reseacrh whaling would occur and laid down guidelines for that research so that it would be in compliance with their ruling and the regulations.

I really do not understand why this truth is so hard for people to grasp.

Please read the ICJ ruling, it will make the truth crystal clear.

Mike and Ossan -- again, nonsense. You are trying to play semantics here, and it is not going to work. I am NOT arguing that the ICJ left the door open for legitimate scientific research. There is no "misunderstanding" as you would like to claim. The debate here, and what Australia and New Zealand are voicing concerns about are Abe's own words:

Abe told the Diet on Monday he wanted to “aim for the resumption of commercial whaling by conducting whaling research in order to obtain scientific data indispensable for the management of whale resources”.

He is only interested in doing research as a step to "the resumption of commercial whaling". And, as you both full well know, commercial whaling is banned. Address that, and stop trying to create this red herring of people missing the point of the ICJ ruling.

jerseyboyJun. 11, 2014 - 08:16AM JST Mike and Ossan -- again, nonsense. You are trying to play semantics here, and it is not going to work. I am NOT >arguing that the ICJ left the door open for legitimate scientific research. There is no "misunderstanding" as you would >like to claim. The debate here, and what Australia and New Zealand are voicing concerns about are Abe's own words:

Yes, Australia and New Zealand as you say would like a return to commercial whaling, ie; the lifting of the moratorium, to NEVER happen. BUT- d you know what "moratorium" means? It dose not mean a permanent cessation. To the contrary it means a "pause". That is because the Moratorium went into effe3ct with the understanding that it would be reviewed in 10 years time, but the anti-whaling faction in the IWC lead y Australia has worked to keep that from happening. The IWC was created to regulate the Whaling Industry and one of it's functions to is ensure that whale stocks are healthy and sufficient to support that. To do that it requires data which it gets through Research Whaling, a mechanism put into place way before the Moratorium came about.

Abe told the Diet on Monday he wanted to “aim for the resumption of commercial whaling by conducting whaling >research in order to obtain scientific data indispensable for the management of whale resources”.

Duh! What do you think the IWC Article VIII is all about? Why do you think the IWC authorizes Research Whaling?

He is only interested in doing research as a step to "the resumption of commercial whaling". And, as you both full well >know, commercial whaling is banned. Address that, and stop trying to create this red herring of people missing the >point of the ICJ ruling.

Yes any country that conducts Research Whaling (bet you didn't know the U.S. did it too once) is doing it to submit the data to the IWC Scientific committee so that they can make recommendations regarding moratoriums, sanctuaries, etc. Abe is "only interested" in dong exactly what he is SUPPOSED to be doing. That you and others do not understand what he ICK ruling said is not a "red herring". It is the cause of your misunderstanding and arguments. Although admittedly in your case you appear to not know why the IWC allows Research Whaling in the first place. Have you ever rad the IWC website?

Readers, please cut out the bickering.

Ossan -- nice rant. In fact, I have visited the IWC web site, and you are correct in saying that the intention of the commission is to:

The preamble to the Convention states that its intention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.

And NO ONE is arguing that. However, the moratorium was put in place because conservation had become a major issue. So, please, rather than just more of your usual bluster, please cite where the IWC states specifically that it is interested in obtaining scientific research for the basis of resuming commercial whaling? And what basis Japan would have for killing whales in order to meet that criteria?

jerseyboy,

I can understand why the IWC put a moratorium in place, back in the day.

But today the IWC homepage itself says that there are an estimated 500,000 minke whales in the Antarctic. That seems like more than enough for a commercial quota if Japan wants to catch some. There's no conservation risk there.

He is only interested in doing research as a step to "the resumption of commercial whaling". And, as you both full well know, commercial whaling is banned. Address that,

That's easy enough - Japan disagrees with the moratorium and thinks it should end now because there are plenty of whales.

But the IWC as a whole continues to pretend the moratorium is still required. For as long as that charade continues, Japan's response is going to be to continue to gather scientific data to show that it isn't.

Japan, long before Abe was in charge, wanted to resume commercial whaling. But there is a moratorium on commercial whaling (there is no ban on commercial whaling). So to resume commercial whaling requires going through the mechanism in the moratorium of providing scientific data that shows the species in question has a large and healthy enough population to be sustainably hunted.

Since Japan is the only country that wants to have the moratorium lifted on the Minke whales they are obligated to collect research data in an attempt to prove that Minke whales can be sustainably hunted.

And since the IWC has refused for over 20 years to make a decision either way about the sustainable hunting, Japan's only options (given they desire to resume commercial hunting) are to collect more data or to quit the IWC and just go hunt as much as they want.

jerseyboyJun. 11, 2014 - 09:18AM JST Ossan -- nice rant. In fact, I have visited the IWC web site, and you are correct in saying that the intention of the >commission is to: The preamble to the Convention states that its intention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. And NO ONE is arguing that.

Good then we agree what the IWC exists for.

However, the moratorium was put in place because conservation had become a major issue. So, please, rather than >just more of your usual bluster, please cite where the IWC states specifically that it is interested in obtaining scientific >research for the basis of resuming commercial whaling?

The IWC does not state that it WANTS to resume commercial whaling. The one who is saying that is Abe.

And what basis Japan would have for killing whales in order to meet that criteria?

Some data can be obtained through non-lethal means. But some data can only be obtained through lethal means. The IWC does not dictate which method must be used as it is only interested in obtaining the data.

"4. Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all practicable measures to obtain such data."

http://iwc.int/permits

The IWC does not state that it WANTS to resume commercial whaling. The one who is saying that is Abe.

Ossan -- FINALLY, we agree. Neither the ICJ nor the IWC are in support of any form of research, especially killing whales, to prepare for a return to commercial whaling, The only ones who want to make that argument are Abe/Japan. That is the whole point of this discussion. If Japan truly "respected" the will of the international community, they would realize that they can probably find a way to once again resume "scientific research". But, for what end? They will never get commercial whaling reinstated. So killing more whales is senseless in the big picture.

jerseyboyJun. 11, 2014 - 11:17AM JST

The IWC does not state that it WANTS to resume commercial whaling. The one who is saying that is Abe.

Ossan -- FINALLY, we agree.

It appears that's about where our agreement ends.

Neither the ICJ nor the IWC are in support of any form of research, especially killing whales, to prepare for a return to >commercial whaling,

Wrong on both counts. First off the ICJ has no opinion or say over whaling one way or the other. Their only position was a ruling that said that the current Jarpa II program is not Research Whaling as it is now, allowing for changes ion he future. Secondly, the IWC is not in support for or against the "killing of whales" it's purpose, and I thought you understood this, is to regulate the Whaling Industry. And they continue the Scientific Permit system in order to gather data to be able to determine whether commercial whaling for certain species should be resumed. I hope you understand that the "Whaling Industry" means killing whales. They aren't talking about whale watching.

The only ones who want to make that argument are Abe/Japan.

So what? They are the only country abiding by the IWC Scientific Committee's call for data. "" Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all practicable measures to obtain such data."

That is the whole point of this discussion. If Japan >truly "respected" the will of the international community, they >would realize that they can probably find a way to once again resume "scientific research". But, for what end? They >will never get commercial whaling reinstated. So killing more whales is senseless in the big picture.

The international community you refer to include only the anti-whaling nations. There are nations that are pro-whaling and those who do not care one way or the other. And how do you know that commercial whaling will never be reinstated? The Japanese Research Whaling so far has proven beyond doubt that the population of Minke whales has increased to the point that sustainable whaling can be conducted. Even some anti-whaling countries like the United States has admitted that commercial whaling of that particular species of as high as 4000 per year would be sustainable. There are some biologists who have even pointed out that the massive increase in Minke populations will negatively affect their food competitors, such as the highly endangered Blue Whale.

Neither the ICJ nor the IWC are in support of any form of research, especially killing whales, to prepare for a return to commercial whaling,

That's incorrect. It's written into the IWC's moratorium that there was supposed to be a review of the moratorium in 1990. Other countries have blocked this from happening.

jerseyboy,

They will never get commercial whaling reinstated.

But if Japan just does a little more research, then they'll have some more data (in addition to that on the IWC's homepage showing there are 500,000 minke whales in the Antarctic), which may convince the IWC that the moratorium can be lifted.

As you said, the moratorium is for conservation. So if scientific data shows that it's no longer required for conservation, then it can be lifted.

But you know what? If the moratorium is actually NOT for conservation, and it's being used by nations who don't like whaling as a means to try to just selfishly have things their way, I'd be disgusted (but not shocked). Geez I really hope that isn't the case, for that wouldn't set a good precedent at all considering all the serious trouble the world has with China and Russia these days. It's not worth going down that slope over a non-endangered flock of whales.

The reason anti whaling nations pushed in maintaining the moratorium is not the number of whales since they know quite well that re-introducing small scale commercial whaling is sustainable but questioned the population age stating they do not know if the whale population is fertile enough to maintain the population. This can only be found through killing samples and checking their ear plugs which grows as they age. This is the very reason why Japan was and is doing lethal scientific whaling in the first place.

If the moratorium is actually NOT for conservation, and it's being used by nations who don't like whaling as a means to try to just selfishly have things their way,

fxgai -- now who exactly is "selfish... to have things their own way"? The anti-whaling nations or Japan, which wants to roam thousands of miles to Antartica to hunt a resourse that they have no more claim to than any other country?

And Ossan, my last comment to you and Japan's record on research is the following:

The IWC has issued at least 19 resolutions criticizing Japan for failing to meet these conditions and asking it to stop issuing permits.

jerseyboy

Selfishness is people placing their emotions over an industry that is trying to do business. The species(Minke whales) in question are not endangered of becoming extinct so it is sustainable business.

The IWC is also stonewalling a poll for over 20 years now.

jerseyboy,

Summary: (1) Japan used to hunt whales commercially before the moratorium (2) moratorium was put in place for conservation reasons (3) IWC now says there are 500,000 minke whales in the Antarctic (4) Anti-whaling nations refuse to agree to lift moratorium, anyway (5) And Japan is now the selfish bad-guy, even though they just want to catch whales as they did before the moratorium

Is that about right?

@jerseyboy

If that was truly the will of the international community then why did the IWC pass a moratorium on whaling that explicitely includes a mechanism to resume commercial whaling rather than an absolute ban on commercial whaling? Why hasn't the IWC repealed Article VIII to remove the option of research whaling? Why hasn't the IWC repealed Article V so member countries can't object to new regulations (like Norway and Iceland) which allows them to legally circumvent the moratorium? And why has the majority of the international community decided to not even join the IWC (less than 50% of the world's nations are members)?

And if the ICJ is not in support of any form of research whaling, why did they provide guidelines on how to write a research whaling plan that will meet their criteria? Why didn't their ruling also shut down Japan's JARPN II research whaling?

a resourse that they have no more claim to than any other country?

They also have no less of a claim and the fact that most countries decide not to pursue their claim should not prevent Japan from pursuing their valid claim. Just because my neighbors decide not to use their right to vote shouldn't affect my right to vote.

jerseyboyJun. 11, 2014 - 01:35PM JST And Ossan, my last comment to you and Japan's record on research is the following: The IWC has issued at least 19 resolutions criticizing Japan for failing to meet these conditions and asking it to stop >issuing permits.

Yes please keep it your last. The IWC resolutions attempting to stop the Japanese Research Whaling programs were non-binding and put together by Australia and the anti-whaling faction within the IWC. In other words, they could have produced 1,900,000 such resolutions and it would still remain meaningless. In contrast, if the IWC Scientific Committee which receives and utilizes the Japanese data ever denounced the data as "fraudulent" or "not valid" that would have put a stop to it right there. This has NEVER happened. In fact the IWC Scientific Committee has made comments commending the value of the data. The IWC is required by it's own by-laws to rely upon the Scientific Committees recommendations in making decisions of this nature.

Gosh it has been fun going one-on-four or five with all you guys -- Ossan, Mike, Samurai, fxgai. Especially since you know you are treating me just as a straw dog for world opinion. Because as you all know, Japan can do all the research it wants, and it will never get the moratorium lifted because its arrogant attitude has hardened opinion against it. Too many pictures of Japanese ships slaughtering whales have been broadcast all over the world and are available at any time on the Internet. Now, as you all point out, that may not be fair, or what the IWC was originally intended for, but it is the reality Japan has brought on itself. But, as a helpful suggestion, instead of wasting your time and energy posting on a site like this, why don't you suggest something positive to Japan? For example, why isn't Japan smart enough to enlist the assistance of someone like The Cousteau Society to "partner" in its research? If they did something like that, they might stand a chance. But just having Abe say "Japan is going to do more research" is just rubbing salt in the wounds of the environmentalists.

jerseyboyJun. 11, 2014 - 09:54PM JST Because as you all know, Japan can do all the >research it wants, and it will never get the moratorium lifted because >its arrogant attitude has hardened opinion against it.

This statement is ridiculous. You personally may have a hardened opinion. But the IWC is not an organization that runs on emotional inspired opinions, but on scientific facts, just as all international organizations which regulate or oversee globally shared natural resources do.

Too many pictures of Japanese ships slaughtering whales have been broadcast all over the world and are available at >any time on the Internet. Now, as you all point out, that may not be fair, or what the IWC was originally intended for, >but it is the reality Japan has brought on itself.

Again a statement that makes no sense. Other nations have simply registered an objection to the Moratorium and are commercially hunting whales without conducting any research. Japan is submitting it's research data to the IWC Scientific Committee. Which do you think is making a more constructive effort towards managing whales stocks?

But, as a helpful suggestion, instead of wasting your time and energy posting on a site like this, why don't you suggest >something positive to Japan?

I am. Keep conducting Research Whaling in accordance with IWC Article VIII, submit he data to them and let the IWC function as it was suppose to. If a natural resource can be utilized in a sustainable way there is no rational or scientific argument to object. Only emotional ones.

For example, why isn't Japan smart enough to enlist the assistance of someone like The Cousteau Society >to "partner" in its research? If they did something like that, they might stand a chance. But just having Abe >say "Japan is going to do more research" is just rubbing salt in the wounds of the environmentalists.

LOL. Find me an Environmental Conservation organization that is willing to "partner" with any organization that exists to commercially exploit the resource.

instead of wasting your time and energy posting on a site like this, why don't you suggest something positive to Japan?

I have suggested over and over that Japan should quit the IWC. If they did this they could conduct commercial whaling to their hearts content. And I have further suggested they set their quotas using the RMP established by the IWC's Scientific Committee.

What Japan should do is this (no need for research with Cousteau): (1) Stand up now to this permanent "moratorium" nonsense, it's better late than never (2) Quit the IWC "temporarily" (note the quotes!), but voluntarily abide by IWC rules for how many whales to catch each year to keep it conservation compatible, as Mike says (3) Commit to rejoining the IWC again in the at such a time as the deceit ends and the moratorium is lifted.

Japan's exit from the IWC would be only as "temporary" as the moratorium. E.g. "just a couple of years, until the moratorium is gone".

Had Japan never accepted the moratorium in the first place and kept hunting whales (as Norway apparently did), they would have been entirely vindicated by now, as the IWC says there are 500,000 minke whales in the Antarctic, where Japan wants to hunt them. Instead they've been portrayed as the bad guys by this propaganda campaign that jerseyboy alludes to.

For all pro commercial whalers

As Octagon posted, south pacific is not a south Japan Sea. Japan still has imperialist mentality for resuming unwanted whaling . As Mike O, Brian posted the ties between them and Japan have only strengthened over that time.

If I find the middle ground, Japan has some rights to do fishing. However Aust and NZ will never surrender for the propaganda of commercial whaling is wearing the face mask of scientific whaling at their backyard. Japan aggression is uncivilized and intolerable unlike Norway.

On the behalf of Aust and Nz, Russia might sink the Japanese whaling ship on one day.

Norway hunts in their own waters, because they have an exception to the moratorium," she said. "Japan was using an article from the schedule of the International Whaling Commission, saying that the captures were being held for a scientific research. After the ICJ showed that this wasn’t a scientific hunt, they had to stop it.

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_06_10/Japan-plan-to-resume-whale-hunt-to-harm-both-whales-and-people-expert-8782/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Norway

imperialist - one whose has or espouses a policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

How is wanted whaling imperialist? Japan isn't trying to extend their rule over another nation, they aren't even trying to extend their rule over international waters. The UN gives ALL countries the right to traverse and collect resources in international waters.

Japan aggression is uncivilized and intolerable unlike Norway.

What aggression? The travel to international waters, as is their right. They collect resources in international waters, as is their right.

On the behalf of Aust and Nz, Russia might sink the Japanese whaling ship on one day.

What? How did Russia get involved in this discussion? And why would Russia declare war on Japan on behalf of Australia and New Zealand (especially if Australia and New Zealand aren't willing to do it themselves)?

Japan was using an article from the schedule of the International Whaling Commission

Which is an exception to the moratorium, just like Norway. So why do you consider them to be different?

After the ICJ showed that this wasn’t a scientific hunt, they had to stop it.

The ICJ ruled that JARPAII didn't meet the criteria of a scientific hunt. That does not mean that scientific hunts aren't possible. In fact by not ruling on JARPANII and by giving guidelines on how to have a compliant scientific hunt the ICJ seems to be saying such hunts are both possible and to be expected.

imperialist - one whose has or espouses a policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

It is exactly Hokkaido and Okinawa have become the colonies of Japan. Japan ADIZ is five times larger than map of Japan and conquering the sky. Now Japan right wings nationalist want to revisit and glorify the rising Sun empire.

Japan isn't trying to extend their rule over another nation, they aren't even trying to extend their rule over international waters.

Japan is lone star cow boy for aggressively fishing for commercial interest. Of course it will not reinforce their rule on other. However it will extend the whaling disregarding other national interest.

The UN gives ALL countries the right to traverse and collect resources in international waters.

UN does not give the unlimited rights for slaughering and collecting resources in international waters. Norway and Iceland do not come and fish near Japan.

And why would Russia declare war on Japan on behalf of Australia and New Zealand (especially if Australia and New Zealand aren't willing to do it themselves)?

Australia and New Zealand are part of ANZAC alliance and do not want to upset their major ally USA. They are not willing to crack the Asia NATO. Russia will not declare war on Japan. Russia can accidentally collide with Whaling ship for deterrence. Japan can request the US for counter punishment on Russia.

Which is an exception to the moratorium, just like Norway. So why do you consider them to be different?

It is entirely different. You should read the whole link from voice of Russia. That voice is louder than other nations.

That does not mean that scientific hunts aren't possible.

ICJ has never allowed commercial whaling. Marine Biological research for limited whaling has been allowed. However Japan has cheated the system and aggressively whaling without concern about the inhabitants sustainability.

In fact by not ruling on JARPANII and by giving guidelines on how to have a compliant scientific hunt the ICJ seems to be saying such hunts are both possible and to be expected.

If ICJ will allow Japan unlimited rights for whaling, Whales will share the same cruel fate as Blue fin Tuna and Japanese eel. Even Japanese eel have become endangered species driven by the appetite of same name of human.

UN does not give the unlimited rights for slaughering and collecting resources in international waters.

Yes they basically do.

Norway and Iceland do not come and fish near Japan.

Well that is because the waters near Japan are the Japanese EEZ and not international. But Norway and Iceland (and any other country) can come fish just outsides Japan's EEZ if they want to.

Russia can accidentally collide with Whaling ship for deterrence.

But you didn't say 'accidentally collide' you said 'sink the Japanese whaling ship'. But still why would Russia do this for Australia and New Zealand? That is the question you were asked.

It is entirely different. You should read the whole link from voice of Russia.

It is not entirely different. And thanks for the suggestion but I did read the whole link from Voice of Russia. But if you don't mind I prefer to read the actual laws and not propaganda.

ICJ has never allowed commercial whaling.

The ICJ has never said anything about commercial whaling and it isn't their place to allow it or not. It is their job to interpret the applicable regulations.

aggressively whaling without concern about the inhabitants sustainability.

The IWC has a formula to calculate sustainable levels of whaling. Using their best data the Japanese hunting levels are well below the sustainable level. Your claim is patently false.

If ICJ will allow Japan unlimited rights for whaling,

Again the ICJ is not the ones to allow whaling. And no one has said Japan should have unlimited rights. Even Japan has not asked for unlimited rights. Japan wants the IWC to follow their own regulations and set a scientifically based sustainable quota for Minke whales.

And if the IWC continues to refuse to do so, Japan can easily quit the IWC and then they can legally practice unlimited whaling if they really want to.

Yes they basically do.

It is your interpretation for your legal client.

Well that is because the waters near Japan are the Japanese EEZ and not international. But Norway and Iceland (and any other country) can come fish just outsides Japan's EEZ if they want to.

Taiwan and PRC have been fishing there. If Norway and Iceland come, Japan has no more fish to eat. Besides that their population is small and they are not greedy like Japan.

It is not entirely different. And thanks for the suggestion but I did read the whole link from Voice of Russia. But if you don't mind I prefer to read the actual laws and not propaganda.

According your theory, Global warming is propaganda. Endangered species is propaganda. Voice of Russia is propaganda. Voice of animal rights is propaganda. BTW laws can be narrowly interpreted by lawyers for defending the interest of their client. I guess you are representing the commercial whaling lobby group.

The ICJ has never said anything about commercial whaling and it isn't their place to allow it or not. It is their job to interpret the applicable regulations.

ICJ can not interfere the decision and determination of any nation. Mother nature is not giving unlimited resources for human. As the most intelligent and cruelest specie, human are ruining the nature. Rules and regulation are frame work for not going extreme. However they are not for everyone.

The IWC has a formula to calculate sustainable levels of whaling. Using their best data the Japanese hunting levels are well below the sustainable level. Your claim is patently false.

I think whenever Japanese fishermen caught one whale, you went to count each one as one by one. Best data is the statics. If I will predict Japan GDP will be 1.9% and unemployment will be 5%. It is the estimating. I can not be sure who is losing job or getting job whilst I am posting. GDP may be more reliable. However it is still unpredictable as weather forecast.

Again the ICJ is not the ones to allow whaling.

ICJ did not initiate the whaling. It has made the framework for individual nation for limited whaling.

And no one has said Japan should have unlimited rights.

Yes! You are. You are die hard fan for persuading Japan should have unlimited rights.

According your old post of Mike O'Brien JUN. 11, 2014 - 10:33AM JST, you said Japan should have unlimited rights for whaling. Pls read your old post.

Japan's only options (given they desire to resume commercial hunting) are to collect more data or to quit the IWC and just go hunt as much as they want.

Then you repeat the same sentence again in your last sentence in newest post. Thanks God you are not authority of Japan.

Japan can easily quit the IWC and then they can legally practice unlimited whaling if they really want to.

Even Japan has not asked for unlimited rights. Japan wants the IWC to follow their own regulations and set a scientifically based sustainable quota for Minke whales.

Are you kidding? If Japan will comply the IWC regulation, Blue fin Tuna and Japanese eel price did not skyrocketed. Demand have exceeded supply.

scientifically based sustainable quota for Minke whales.

In the perfect world, everything will be wine and rose according the scientifically based sustainable quota. Is our life span is controllable? NO! Human is not God which can control the nature and quantity of species.

Whaling Quota is like a debt which can be increased gradually overtime. US and some debt ridden nations have been increasing their debt ceiling limit which constitution is allowed. Constitution or fishing law can be changed. If the market is hot, fishermen will be greedy and they will lobby for increasing the quota. There will be also unlicensed fishermen whaling for black market.

According the Cove movie, Japan also has dolphin cemetery in the hidden place. According your bias, Japan has scientifically based sustainable data for dolphin too.

Let 's heal the world and make a better place according Late Michael Jackson.

According your theory, Global warming is propaganda.

Nope it is a fact, global temperatures have increased since the 1800's.

Endangered species is propaganda.

Nope it is a fact that some species populations have been reduced to dangerous levels.

Voice of Russia is propaganda.

Yes it is.

I guess you are representing the commercial whaling lobby group.

Nope I have nothing to do with any whaling industry. But nice ad hom, shows even you know the weakness of your claims.

ICJ did not initiate the whaling. It has made the framework for individual nation for limited whaling.

No it has not. The ICJ has made ONE ruling ever that deals with whaling and that ruling strictly applies to the JARPA II research program. They have NEVER said anything else about whaling.

Yes! You are. You are die hard fan for persuading Japan should have unlimited rights.

No, I clearly said Japan should have a quota based on the best available science.

According your old post of Mike O'Brien JUN. 11, 2014 - 10:33AM JST

Would that be the post that twice said "sustainable"? And sorry but the comment does not say that I think Japan should have unlimited rights for whaling. It merely says that IF they quit the IWC then they set their limits rather than the IWC.

if they really want to.

Do you not understand simple English? It is a simple fact that ANY country that is not part of the IWC has no international restrictions on their whaling. That is not the same things as agreeing with that or believing that they should use that fact to over hunt. But again thanks for showing the lengths you will twist a simple statement to try and prove your lie.

Whaling Quota is like a debt which can be increased gradually overtime.

No it is not and silly analogies will not make it so. Whaling quotas are based on mathematical formulas that don't change. You plug in data and get an answer and with the same data the answer is the same every time. And if the data changes then the answer changes.

Nope it is a fact, global temperatures have increased since the 1800's.

Have you been to 1800''s or just referring from your very reliable data as scientifically proven?

Nope it is a fact that some species populations have been reduced to dangerous levels.

It is because of unsustainable demand from consumers and pro commercial lobby group. They manipulated rules and regulation for their narrow interest.

No it has not. The ICJ has made ONE ruling ever that deals with whaling and that ruling strictly applies to the JARPA II research program. They have NEVER said anything else about whaling.

Again it has different interpretation for research and commercial greed. ICJ is not representing the Japanese fishing industry. One rule has plain English for limited and sustainable amount for research.

No, I clearly said Japan should have a quota based on the best available science.

You repeat the science again. According Marine Biology, all species existence have limited life span. Temperature of water, pollution of water, contaminated industrial waste and interrupting their mating season will make the certain species existence. Fish can not mate like human for 7 days and 24 hours.

When I was on holidays in Myanmar(Burma), impoverished Fishermen refrained fishing during the mating season. It is more scientific than propaganda.

Do you not understand simple English?

No I am still learning from you.

ANY country that is not part of the IWC has no international restrictions on their whaling. That is not the same things as agreeing with that or believing that they should use that fact to over hunt.

Can you tell me any other country have the habit for whaling and eating whale meat? If Japanese population declined more and more, even this body is no longer required for saving money!

Whaling quotas are based on mathematical formulas that don't change. You plug in data and get an answer and with the same data the answer is the same every time. And if the data changes then the answer changes.

Interesting! It may be like Calculus formula. I am very weak in Calculus and no faith in mathematical formula. Seeing is believing. During my whale whisper cruise, we did not see any whale. It is hard to believe there are still plenty under ocean.

I haven't made any comment about dolphins or dolphin quotas and I have no idea what Japan bases their dolphin quotas on.

It is true that you have not mentioned about it. You misunderstood what I mean that you will fiercely defend for secretive nature of commercial and cultural group.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently ruled that special permits granted by Japan in connection with its Antarctic whale hunt are "not for purposes of scientific research pursuant to Article VIII, paragraph 1" of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

No they didn't. They ruled that the JAPRA II permit AS IMPLEMENTED was "not for purposes of scientific research pursuant to Article VIII, paragraph 1".

Today we can obtain all the information we need from non-lethal research.

It depends on what data and why it is wanted. Even the IWC agrees that some of the data Japan collects cannot be obtained by non-lethal means. They just don't see the need for that data because it is data that is only useful if you plan on hunting the whales and the political aim of the IWC has become to oppose that actual purpose of the IWC.

From the ICRW;

Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources;

The only useful part of a dead whales body for science is the inner ear.

Nope. Even the IWC Scientific Committee, in their reviews of the Japanese research whaling data, has discussed the usefulness of other data only obtainable by lethal means. such things as organ samples for toxin levels, and samples from the reproductive organ indicating such data as age of sexual maturity, fertility and reproductive status. Data required to determine a sustainable hunting quota, along with the required age data from the otoliths.