Slashdot Mirror
UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"
First time accepted submitter Nodsnarb (2851527) writes "The UN's international Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Japan's Antarctic whaling program is not for scientific purposes. In a statement, the court said that Japan's programme involved activities which 'can broadly be characterised as scientific research.' However, it said that 'the evidence does not establish that the programme's design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives.' It added: 'The court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not 'for purposes of scientific research' pursuant to [the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling].'"
So I'm shocked....just shocked, I say, that there was no scientific objective .
Perhaps the science part was developing more efficient harpoons.
How will the UN enforce this? This is nothing more than a symbolic gesture as I don't think sanctions are likely to hurt Japan all that much.
My throat can only make one sound :
DUH !
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
As opposed to those other countries, that haven't invented 'using euphemisms to evade established law' yet?
I'll be right back, the illegal enemy combatants in administrative detention are causing trouble again.
Somebody set up us the harpoon.
All your whale are belong to us.
For great justice.
Australia had sued Japan at the U.N.’s highest court for resolving disputes between nations
Hold the phone--you mean there are ways to solve disputes between nations that *don't* involve firing artillery, invasion or threatening sanctions? Has anyone told North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine or the United States?
... tuna is actually more endangered than the minke whales Japan catch. Australia is a large producer of tuna. "Whale doesn't even taste good" is a common anti-whaling statement, yet neither does tuna. But Japan like tuna, so they won't protest it.
I have said it before, but I think it's worth repeating:
When it comes to exploiting (other) natural resources in a high seas region it's important to prove that you have been economically active there for a long time, and still are. The whaling is an investment. This investment requires that the programme is pretty openly non-scientific. Just 'scientific' enough so a sufficient number of other countries in the International Whaling Commission can be convinced to allow it, where necessary through a bribe. But no more so, because at some point later Japan will have to prove that it was an economic activity, not research.
In the USA, a large quantity of peanut butter is now being destroyed because it comes from a plant that had experienced Salmonella contamination, although supposedly not at the time this particular lot was made.
In the mean time, Japan - a country notoriously obsessed with cleanliness and purity - is eating discarded remains of scientific experiments.
And the whales are *NOT* the only animal that they killed. They kill dolphins too !
If the reason for the exclamation mark is that dolphins are considered cuter than whales then I think you are preaching to the wrong crowd.
This article is already a bit off by being posted on Slashdot rather than to pages that specializes in wildlife, environment or Japanese food.
Please don't make me take the side of Japanese whalers just to spite you.
So I guess we'll never know if a whale can survive a harpoon to the cerebral cortex. This is a dark day for science.
In the mean time, Japan - a country notoriously obsessed with cleanliness and purity - is eating discarded remains of scientific experiments.
There is not and never was any science involved. This was a fig leaf to protect commercial interests, nothing more. These were obviously fishing vessels for commercial purposes and everyone has known that from day one.
Actually that's a red herring with zero relevance to the subject of whaling. Siberian tigers are even more rare than tuna, so Japan should be able to haul in as many bluefins as they can catch. Or something.
So, can someone explain to me why whaling is such a very bad thing the whole Western world has to get in an uproar - yet destroying huge portions of the rain forest and endangering species living in it to breed cattle or grow soy is ok? It's not like our culinary preferences are not endangering other species and destroying their natural habitats.
But when it's whales, all of a sudden it matters?
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
How are they going to put food on their plate now?
not so much rooting for whalers, as rooting against the anti-whalers. an altruistic act does not make good a completely wretched person.
for example, being a dick doesn't invalidate what assange did, but at the same time, what he accomplished doesn't make him less of a dick.
There is an east-west cultural difference here.
In the West, we have "plausible deniability", where we can't be 100% sure they knew they were telling lies.
In the East, a plain-as-day outright lie is more polite than saying "no, we withdraw from your treaty.".
1) It all matters. The same people who oppose rainforest devastation for food oppose whaling for food. The same people who don't give a shit about the rainforest don't, generally speaking, give a shit about whales.
2) They're a slow-breeding, unfarmed animal. Whaling has essentially been outlawed* because they can't sustain being hunted for food.
*Countries can go cap-in-hand to the UN to ask for a quota, for example to preserve small-scale traditional hunting. It goes without saying that Japan's present whaling operation doesn't meet the cultural criteria.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Remember folks, the US does allow whaling. Alaska native tribes are still allowed a subsistence hunt for bowhead whales.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
> Norway and Iceland, two countries that continue to whale, get around the IWC’s 1986 moratorium by simply rejecting it.
http://time.com/43674/japanese-whaling-ban-wont-end-the-whale-wars/
You missed (or deliberately ignored, or agree with) the central untruth that made that concept suspect: Is dressing your soldiers up as civilians in voilation of the Geneva convention, and do such soldiers forfeit assorted protections afforded uniformed forces Yes. So far, so good.
If somebody isn't a soldier and commits a crime in civilian cloths (as civilians are wont to do), can you argue that he violated the Geneva convention? Hardly, it only applies to soldiers.
That is the big lie of 'illegal enemy combatants'. Had the State of Terrorstan actually sent disguised soliders in, the illegality of their activity under the Convention would be cut and dry. No such state exists. Instead, the US decided to apply the standards of the Geneva Convention (selectively) to certain non-state actors who, being non-state, didn't act in uniform, in order to keep them in limbo between the protections afforded civilians and the protections afforded regular soldiers.
I'm well aware that the Geneva Convention takes a dim view of spy types; but it is wholly orthogonal to the treatment of civilian criminals, no matter how noxious.
Well I don't trip over whales every time I take a step into the ocean. Kangaroo is more akin tuna. There are millions of them around. In many places they are considered a pest and are culled not for eating but because they destroy the ecosystem. If whales were that prevalent that you had to kill them to maintain a balanced ecosystem I'm sure we wouldn't have a problem with the Japanese killing them for food, err I mean research.