On Wednesday, April 30, three professors of Sturm College of Law presented a discussion called “Whaling in the Courtroom” to an audience of about 50 people. Annecoos Wiersema, Justin Marceau and Justin Pidot spoke about whales, whaling and resistance to whaling in the context of national and international legal systems.
Whaling is the practice or industry of hunting and killing whales for their oil, meat or whalebone. The ethics and legalities of regulating this industry have been contested both domestically and internationally.
The discussion was provoked by the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) landmark ruling in the Japan v. Australia case involving allegations against Japan claims that they have scientific precedent for continued whaling in the Antarctic. As a consequences of this ruling, the special research permit Japan was initially granted has now been revoked.
Wiersema is an associate professor of law and director of the International Legal Studies Program at Sturm Law. Currently, Wiersema’s most significant teaching and research experience is in international environmental law, and environmental and natural resources law. Marceau is a professor, as well as a litigator and consultant for the leading animal welfare non-profit, the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Pidot is an assistant professor of environmental and natural resources law. The discussion began with Japan.
Marceau began the event by demonstrating the gravity of this issue with a graphic video of a Japanese whaling expedition. He stated that Japan has a twelve-million dollar industry capturing and killing Minke, fin and humpback whales. Though whaling of these species is illegal under the International Whaling Commission, there is an exception under Article VIII that says it is permitted “to kill, take and treat whales for the purpose of scientific research.”
Japan’s whaling industry was officially known as the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA). The goals listed were monitoring the ecosystem and observing interspecies competition. As a means of conducting this research they declared the need to kill a certain number of each of these species. A number was determined, but Wiersema said they have been harvesting less than the specific numbers they demanded. Though Wiersema acknowledged that it may seem this was positive, it demonstrated that either their goals did not actually require such numbers or that they were not determining the numbers of whales based on their supposed research goals.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is an international non-profit marine wildlife conservation organization whose mission is to “end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world’s oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species.”
Marceau explained that allegations of piracy were brought against them due to Captain Paul Watson’s belief in direct action in the issue of whaling. This action includes sailing the seas and physically intervening in the hunting of whales by various international industries and producers.
Though they were being sued through the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, they diverted these allegations by re-establishing as an Australian organization. As Marceau said, at that point the Japanese were attempting to ask the U.S. to make a judgment on Australian non-profit that would undermine the international judgment on the legality of whaling and would enable Japan to continue its whaling practices.
The SSCS has disregarded any legalities and continues to physically intervene in international waters. In the case of the Japanese hunting in the Antarctic, this involved launching their flagship, Farley Mowat, from Australia and intercepting Japanese ships, ramming the bodies of the ships and fouling the propellers.
The SSCS has also taken a stance on the final issue of discussion highlighted by the three professors, Native American rights to whaling. They recognize that the issue is not about small tribes of indigenous peoples catching a handful of whales each, but allowing a case by case consideration that would allow the entire issue to become a grey area.
Nevertheless, issues have arisen from small tribes on the coast that have documentation of the U.S. government guaranteeing rights to whaling as a stipulation of a trade agreement. The example presented by Pidot was of the Macaw tribe in Washington state. They are requesting permission to begin whaling again as their communities are suffering from immense unemployment. It would be a means of economic development as well as a revival of heritage.
Wiersema stated that she hoped the audience gained, “new insights about the conflicts of whaling and the role it is playing in the courts” and encourages interested students to start by getting involved with the environmental groups on campus.
