Australia Vs. Japan: Case in Court

[Yamato]

Public hearings are under way in The Hague as Australia and Japan take their fight over whaling to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Australia will argue that Tokyo's scientific research programme - under which it kills whales - is commercial whaling in disguise. Japan - which aims to catch up to 1,000 whales each year - says it is ready to defend its right to conduct research.

There has been a ban on commercial whaling since 1986.

Australia initiated the legal action at the top UN court in 2010.

'Halted'

The first round of oral arguments began on Wednesday, with Australia taking the floor for three days to set out its case that Japan's position that its whaling activities are for scientific purposes "is not only untenable, it is dangerous" for whale populations.

Japan will make its counter arguments over three days from next Tuesday. A further round of arguments, including an intervention from New Zealand, will then take place with the case wrapping up on 16 July - though a ruling is then not expected for several months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23045457

[Odds]

I doubt this will get us far in respect to stopping whaling, but it's a good step in the right direction.

[Taun]

It does make me wonder, exactly what kind of research they are conducting... Something along the lines of "Which bar-b-que sauce works best with whale meat" I'm thinking...

Edited June 26, 2013 by Taun

[Irrelevant]

I don't have a problem with it as long as the species are not endangered, and its sustainable.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Irrelevant

[Yamato]

I don't have a problem with it as long as the species are not endangered, and its sustainable.

What does endangered mean to you? Threatened? Below whatever population figure some bureaucracy comes up with? Below a unique number posited by your favorite Biologist?

There is no sustainability in the toll we're taking on our oceans. The oceans are dying. We can go over example after example of this. Take the Blue Whale, which at one time numbered in the hundreds of thousands in the world's oceans, was reduced to 1800-2000 Blue Whales worldwide, and by some estimates, their numbers were as low as 600-700 worldwide. We cannot wipe out 99.xx% of the population of a species of whale because we already know through empirical proof that they will not recover their numbers again, even when we stop hunting them for very long periods of time.

We cannot be so haphazard and delirious to our own actions to turn our backs on the permanent damage being done to our oceans only to care about the commercial slaughter of whales by an economic superpower who's the last place on earth to need the sustenance of whale meat, let alone another outbreak of heavy metals poisoning. Like the oceans themselves, Great Whales cannot withstand the slaughter we have subjected them to. They have massive problems threatening their survival already, they don't need poachers added to the list.

I doubt this will get us far in respect to stopping whaling, but it's a good step in the right direction.

I'm having trouble reconciling this comment. So you think that Australia will win in court, but you don't think Japan will stop whaling in your waters?

Edited June 26, 2013 by Yamato

[psyche101]

I doubt this will get us far in respect to stopping whaling, but it's a good step in the right direction.

I agree, finally we are starting to try and do things through legal channels instead of some bunch of idiot vigilantes just aggravating the situation.

Updates:

Australia takes Japan to court on whaling – where to now?

Whaling in the Antarctic: Australia v. Japan – week one

[Frank Merton]

I don't have a problem with it as long as the species are not endangered, and its sustainable.

I do. Cetaceans are among the most intelligent species known, and some of them may be as smart as we are, although obviously in a different way. I just do not see where we have any right to kill them.

[Bavarian Raven]

I just do not see where we have any right to kill them.

Technically speaking, we have as much right to kill and consume them as any predatory species does to another species. Whether we do/should is a whole another debate.

[Yamato]

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/17298.pdf

[Yamato]

[media=]

[/media]

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I'm having trouble reconciling this comment. So you think that Australia will win in court, but you don't think Japan will stop whaling in your waters?

That's what I think.

They'll just ignore the law, cite "tradition" and hunt in International Waters, just like they already do. Maybe New Zealand and Australia will use any possible ruling as a way of preventing the whaling ships from refueling in Antipodean docks, but then the Japanese will just use fuel ships like they already have.

[psyche101]

That's what I think.

They'll just ignore the law, cite "tradition" and hunt in International Waters, just like they already do. Maybe New Zealand and Australia will use any possible ruling as a way of preventing the whaling ships from refueling in Antipodean docks, but then the Japanese will just use fuel ships like they already have.

You might be right, with Idiots like Dreyfuss in there pleading emotional bullcrap, we will probably get eaten alive and left with court costs. Japan keeps saying our problem is zero tolerance, but as pointed out, Japan has no independent support for what it claims is science, I just hope we can focus on the science and leave the emotion out of it, or we probably will lose. I do not understand why the Greenpeace findings are not the focus to prove the excuse is simply that, an excuse.

The only thing we do have going for us at the moment I think is that both parties have agreed to abide by the final decision made in the Hague based court.