Japans right to whaling is legally justified - Essay Example

Japan’s right to whaling is legally justified Introduction Whaling remains one of the most hotly debated topics amongst various global issues related to environmental protection, and revolves around the main question as whether humans should keep up the practice of hunting whales. Even though the scientists believe that under current wildlife protection management system it is unlikely that whales will become extinct, the practice of whaling is still widely condemned (Nagasaki, 1993). The anti-whaling sentiments took form mainly during the late 1970s when many anti-whaling and non-whaling countries joined the International Whaling Commission (IWC), in order “to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry” (International Whaling Commission, The Convention, 2003). In 1982, IWC members voted with three-fourth majority that brought forth a break on commercial whaling. In this context the text (paragraph 10(e)- classification of stocks) that implement ban on commercial whaling states “Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero” (International Whaling Commission, The Convention, 2003). The 1986 moratorium banning commercial whaling led to the formation of a strong opposition against countries like Iceland, Norway and Japan that continue to hunt whales, which they claim to be primarily for scientific research work. Here the opposition to whaling now relates to a compete banning of whale killing in any form, commercial or for scientific reason. Countries like Australia and the US along with NGOs like Greenpeace claim that with some species of the whales being in list of endangered animals, whaling in any form must be banned. On the other hand, countries like Norway and Japan that have consumed whale meat for centuries (a practice that began as early as 12th century in Japan), favour whaling, primarily as a source of food (Japan Whaling Association, Chronology of Whaling, nd). Under the provisions made within the agreement that allows whaling for scientific purposes, Japan continues its whaling, which is undertaken by the Institute of Cetacean Research. Once the whales are hunted for scientific reasons (as claimed), they are then sold as food, which is allowed under the IWC directives, even though a majority of the IWC members opposes the provision (Taylor, 2010). The so-called scientific hunts are an issue of debate between anti and pro-whaling nations and those opposing whaling claim that scientific program of Japanese government related to whales is unnecessary and is primarily a mask that helps it continue with commercial hunting operations (Briggs, 2007). In retaliation, Japan continues to maintain the sustainability of whaling and necessity of effective management of whales and scientific researches on maintaining their stocks. They further contend that divergent opinions on whaling are primarily owing to socio-cultural differences (Friedheim, 2001, pp. 1-45). This view on whaling directly contradicts Japan’s stand on other environmental issues where it has assumed the role of an important player within various global environmental policies, like the ones that help to fight against global warming and worldwide ozone (Miyaoka, 2004). In the context of this whaling controversy that relates man and natural resources, the article will study to derive that Japan’s right to whaling is legally justified, despite strong opposition from various anti-whaling quarters. Discussion Whaling, which is now of great environmental concern, was of no significance before mid-1960s, when whaling was viewed as a highly competitive and global industry, which involved huge financial investments and unfavourable working conditions, mixed with elements of national pride (Tönnesen and Johnsen, 1982). During the late 1960s, when due to efforts from increasing numbers of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) various scientific reviews started appearing that warned of whales facing extinction, and soon they were labelled as ‘endangered’ species, a view which was rapidly adopted by many of the US and many European countries. Thus, there came into existence a strong anti-whaling group that brought in various norms tat aimed to regulate whale hunting (while even trying to implement a complete ban) at a global level, even though these regulatory norms have been staunchly opposed by some nations around the world, with Japan, being a leading campaigner against banning of whaling (Hirata, 2004). In the context of political and legal management of whaling, various organisation all a part of a complex web, function at local, national and international levels. As for example, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species or CITES, which was formed in 1975 has taken part in establishing regulation on export of all products related to whales (Andresen, 2004, pp. 41–65). In CITES there are three categories of endangered animals (Appendices I, II and III), where Appendix I comprises of animal species that are near extinction, and hence accorded highest levels of protection, while commercial activities related to such animals are banned. The appendix I lists Grey whale, Right whale, Pygmy right whale, Dolphins, Bottle nosed whales, Humpback whale, Sperm whale, River dolphins, Beaked whales and Porpoises. Even though Japan signed the CITES agreement in 1980, it had put forth nine clauses, and by December 2008 the clauses were applicable to 12 species that included different species of whales. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained that it had set reservations against eight whale species, as these were forced into appendix I without any logical or scientific basis, and the specific species are not near extinction with enough stock for sustainable hunting to continue. Therefore, here it is obvious that Japan lays emphasis on measures adopted as per “the proper management of whales, from the standpoint of…sustainable use [based on the] collecting [of] scientific data essential to the proper conservation and management of whale” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, International Whaling Commission (IWC), 2012). These clauses, as put in by the Japan ministry, conform to the CITES Article 23 (2 and 3). Thus, by presenting reservations japan is not obliged to follow the agreement in respect to specific whale species. Amongst all animals that are listed as endangered within CITES, whales form to be the only significant exception for Japan, clearly indicating Japan unwillingness to accept CITES regulatory norms related to whale trade. At a global level however the most influential organisation that deals in whaling issues, is the International Whaling Commission, an intergovernmental organisation, established in 1948, which was originally established to control and monitor whaling, a flourishing industry at that time. From an organisation for the whalers until the mid-60s, IWC later turned into an organisation for preservation of whales, owing to political pressure from powerful nations like the US and NGOs like Greenpeace (Andresen, 2004, pp. 41-65). The actual institutionalization of regulations for banning commercial whaling came into existence in 1982, when the ten-year moratorium was passed with a majority, which came into effect from 1986. There were no doubts that certain whale stocks and specific species were hunted to such extents that led to low counts for these mammals, but scientific evidence for implementing a complete ban on commercial whaling was considered (and still remains) controversial, even amongst the IWC Scientific Committee. However, prior to the 1986 moratorium, the New Management Procedure or NMP (which was proposed by Australia and later adopted by IWC in 1974) was used as a measure for whale management that banned whale hunting of over-exploited stocks, while allowing small scale commercial activities of the species that were found in abundance (Tanaka, 1984). Therefore, the moratorium that produced a blanket ban on all forms of commercial activities related to whaling was not compelling, as in 1972, owing to the fact that IWC procedures were ameliorated by NMP. A mention of a number of whale species that were abundant in number with no fear of loss in their populations clearly indicated that the 1986 moratorium did not have any scientific basis, and hence the regulation was not required. Despite commercial whaling being completely banned by the moratorium, legal whaling was still possible through various ways under IWC norms. Countries that are not members of the IWC (as Canada) need not follow any rules and can go ahead with commercial whaling. Nations that have ratified IWC can carry on with commercial whaling by presenting reservations to the moratorium norms (this was observed when Iceland put forth a reservation to Paragraph 10 (e) of the convention schedule, after re-joining the organisation and it was allowed to start commercial whale hunting in 2006). Countries are allowed to hunt whales under special permissions (permits for conducting scientific researches and whale hunting permits for aboriginal subsistence). To counter the blanket ban on commercial whaling, Iceland and Norway in 1992 established the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO). This a regional level body created primarily with the objective of challenging the 1986 moratorium (Hoel, 1993). Within IWC, debates between the two factions are based on biological sciences related to whales, their population management, and obligations within a treaty; on the other hand, arguments that are based on emotions, politics, or are value-based are generally overlooked (Jasanoff and Martello, 2004, pp. 263-284). Thus, anti-whaling norms like creation of a sanctuary within waters of the Southern Ocean in 1994 can be explained through scientific and legal connotations, while opposing whale hunting merely based on moral and ethical reasons would fail to convince the IWC into framing regulations (ibid). However, public debates on the issue of whale hunting enjoy greater freedom, contain less scientific and legal terms, and are more expansive in nature. These characteristics have led to the evolution of public discourses that are invested in a great deal of moral and ethical arguments against whaling. Using this to their advantage where they can directly influence the public on the issue of whale protection at a global level, various NGOs (as Greenpeace) have painstakingly established a picture where whales appear as almost beatific animals (Kalland, 1998). As Kalland in another paper stated that these groups using anthropomorphic techniques have managed to create an image of a “Super-Whale myth,” where the mammal is shown as intelligent, friendly, curious and near extinct (Kalland, 1993, p. 4). Despite the aforementioned attributes assigned to all forms of whales by the NGOs have no scientific bases, they often find support from scientists or biologists who believe in protecting the environment. Therefore, in their Super-Whale image, these mammals have moral and ethical rights almost in the same lines as of humans (Kalland, 1993). Even though there are varying perspectives on this matter, the fundamental idea that frames modern anti-whaling arguments are based on animal rights and welfare, which also have a strong influence in creating modern anti-whaling regulations. Amongst the groups that oppose whaling, killing of whales is seen as a barbaric activity, committed by hunters who lack any sense of moral and ethical values (ibid). Concurrently whale meat, which has been a part of staple diet for many nations around the world, has been portrayed labelled as a worldwide “food taboo,” where eating of whale meat is equated with immoral activity, vulgarity, and sometimes even labelled as cannibalism (Lien, 2004, pp.179–199). In this context, it has often been seen that nations that consume whale meat face a form of racial prejudice that stem from negative propaganda created through public media images where the cultural practice of whale-eating is shown in a derogatory manner. This is evident in one of the most infamous examples, where the UK newspaper Daily Star published an article in 1991 with the headlines, “Sickest dinner ever served. Japs feast on whale” (cited in, Kalland, 2009, p. 86). Such unjustified and derogatory publicity and other anti-whaling regulations have created a negative image for Japan, Norway and Iceland (all whale-eating nations), within the US and European media circles (even though these very nations were once part of the flourishing worldwide whale-trade market, until the 1960s). Therefore, we find that the present anti-whaling regulations, even though not accepted by all nations, have permeated to almost all parts of the world. This has been possible mainly through clever manipulation of mass media by various NGOs, despite Japan being clearly within its legal rights to continue with whaling for scientific research (it is also clear that the tag ‘near extinct’ for whales had no scientific support). It is evident that anti-whaling norms are mainly of two types. The scientifically and legally derived norms are institutionalized through IWC regulations that cannot completely ban whaling due to lack of scientific data. On the other hand, norms that have been established by various NGOs through social or public manipulation using mass media have ethical or moral values, where whaling and eating whale meat are portrayed as an act of sacrilege and hence tabooed. Both types of anti-whaling propaganda, to some extent falsely (that is, without basing their arguments on any scientific evidence) represent the whale-eating countries in a negative manner. The two norms tend to sustain each other’s arguments while debating against pro-whaling groups. In IWC convention, under Article 8 (1), there are provisions for allowing nations to continue whaling for scientific work, with regular updates being presented to IWC in this regard. As per Article 8 (2), the whales hunted for scientific work must necessarily be processed, clearly suggesting that whale meat can be used as food and sold in the market for general consumption. The Article 8 also allows Japan to continue with scientific research in two main areas; Japans Whale Research in the Western North Pacific (the JARPN II, from 2000 onward) and Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II, from 2005 onward). The JARPA II has four main goals “(a) estimation of biological parameters to improve the stock management of the Southern Hemisphere minke whale; b) elucidate the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem; c) elucidation of the effect of environmental change on cetaceans; and d) elucidation of the stock structure of Southern Hemisphere minke whales to improve management” (The Institute of Cetacean Research, JARPA/JARPA II research results, 2011). The JARPA II program focuses on three whale species, which are, minke whales, sperm whales and Brydes whales, with a fixed number being allowed for scientific researches. The primary objectives of JARPN II comprise of “a) feeding ecology and ecosystem studies (prey consumption by cetaceans, prey preference of cetaceans, ecosystem modeling); b) monitoring environmental pollutant in cetaceans and the marine ecosystem (pattern of accumulation of pollutants in cetaceans, bioaccumulation process of pollutants through the food chain, relationships between chemical pollutants and cetacean health), and c) stock structure of large whales (common minke whale, Bryde’s whale, sei whale and sperm whale)” (JARPN/JARPN II research results, 2010,1). Researches on whales are conducted by the Institute of Cetacean Research, which is monitored by the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. After conducting researches, the institute is allowed to trade in whale meat, which forms the product of scientific research conducted on the mammal. Therefore, from the aforementioned objectives we find Japan has remained within the guidelines created by the IWC and hence is legally justified in continuing with whaling for scientific purposes. Many NGOs (Greenpeace) and members of the IWC like Australia have a militant approach towards whaling (primarily based on ethical and moral values) even for scientific purposes, and are especially against Japanese scientific researches. These anti-whaling groups contend that scientific research does not necessarily translate into whale killing. Furthermore, these groups claim that Japan is actually conducting commercial whaling, under the garb of scientific research. This is evident in a statement published by Greenpeace, where it claimed that scientific research conducted by Japan on whales “is a poorly-disguised commercial operation” (Greenpeace International, Japanese whaling, 2012). At the same time IWC members, like Australia and the US are persistently levying political pressures on Japan to stop whaling. Therefore, even though Japan is legally justified to conduct whaling for scientific research, and then sell the meat for human consumption (‘processed’ meat provision in the IWC), yet the country is facing problems while trying to convince the anti-whaling community that scientific research is necessary for future preservation of whales. Another provision under IWC norms that allow for whaling is the aboriginal subsistence permit, which is also facing controversy. Specific areas receive special permits for whaling, where it is acknowledged that there are evidences that show whaling is necessary for addressing the survival needs and cultural requirements of the people. The primary objectives of this permit are: “ensure risks of extinction not seriously increased (highest priority); enable harvests in perpetuity appropriate to cultural and nutritional requirements; [and] maintain stocks at highest net recruitment level and if below that ensure they move towards it” (IWC, aboriginal subsistence whaling, 2012). Areas that come under aboriginal substantial whaling include Alaska in USA, Bequia in St Vincent, Siberia in Russia, and Greenland in Denmark. Despite Japan filing application for aboriginal substantial whaling permit from 1988, the requests have been rejected by IWC under pressure from some of its member states and powerful NGOs. Whaling is provided for legally under Japan’s domestic laws (Fishery Laws) that are specifically labelled as Designated Fishery (under Article 52) (The Fisheries law, 1949- revised in 1969). Under the fishery laws, whaling has three main categories, which are factory-ship whaling, small-type whaling, and large-type whaling. Factory-ship whaling and large-type whaling are banned under the 1986 moratorium as commercial whaling. Small-type whaling is allowed except for Minke whales and is conducted mainly in the coastal areas that hunt pilot whales and Bairds whales, under permission from Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Coastal fishing also allows Dolphin fishery that hunt Bottlenose dolphins, Pilot whales and Dalls porpoise, under permission from prefecture governors. Coastal whaling is a part of fishing conducted by small fishing communities that reside in Japan’s coastal villages. Besides coastal fishing, legal provisions for whaling related to scientific research are validated within Japan’s Fishery laws (The Fisheries law, 1949- revised in 1969). Besides the legal provisions that justify Japan’s legal right to whaling, the attitude towards whaling as seen within the Japanese citizens show strong support for the activity, and there are three different viewpoints. The first set of people firmly believe whale eating is a part of Japanese culture for centuries, and hence view it as a national cuisine having an unique Japanese cultural identity (Hirata, 2004). The second group of people believe that whales are a type of fish, and not mammals, which is reinforced through a 1500-year-old form of writing, where the sign for whales make it a part of the fish family or uo-hen (ibid). Thus, viewing whales as any other kind of fish, the Japanese disagree with the activists on the theory of rights for mammalian (whales’) rights. From the third viewpoint, a majority of Japanese feel that opposing whaling is a form of western interference in the domestic matters of Japan and a direct infringement of its own socio-cultural practices. A majority of the Japanese believe that it is not wrong to whale hunt and eat whale meat, if one does not over-harvest the animals (ibid). Japanese citizens feel that western nations are hypocritical when they rule that specific mammals (as whales) cannot be killed, but consider it correct to kill calves (in the US) and kangaroos (in Australia) for their own consumption (Dyer, 2001). Conclusion From the above discussion, it can be suggested that Japan is legally justified to continue with its whale hunting for scientific research work, despite strong opposition from anti-whaling groups. There are no scientific evidences that whales are near extinct, even though the NGOs may claim otherwise. With Japan’s claims of using sustainable ways of whale hunting, there are no fears of a sudden decrease in the number of whales (specific species) that Japan’s hunts for scientific research, which is later used for human consumption (in concordance to the provisions made within the IWC provisions). References Andresen, S., 2004. “Whaling: Peace at Home, War Abroad.” In, J. B. Skjærseth ( ed.) International regimes and Norways Environmental Policy. Ashgate, London. Briggs, S., 2007. Kyokuyo Joins Maruha to End Whale Meat Sales in Japan (Update1). Bloomberg [Online] available at, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aPhG1CfyPue0 [Accessed 20th May 2012] Dyer, G., 2001. Why Japan won’t back down on whaling. The Japan Times online. [Online] available at http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20010725a1.html [accessed 23rd May 2012] Friedheim, R., 2001. Toward a Sustainable Whaling Regime. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Greenpeace International, 2012. Japanese whaling. [Online] available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/whaling/ending-japanese-whaling/ [accessed 23rd May 2012] Hirata, K., 2004. Beached Whales: Examining Japan’s Rejection of an International Norm. Social Science Japan Journal 7 (2), 177–197. Hoel, A., 1993. Regionalization of International Whale Management: The Case of the North Atlantic Marine Mammals Commission. Arctic 46 (2), 116–123. Japan Whaling Association, nd. Chronology of Whaling. [Online] available at, http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html [accessed 19th May 2012] JARPN/JARPN II research results, 2010. [Online] available at, http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/61JARPNResearchResults.pdf [accessed 22nd May 2012] Jasanoff, S., and Martello, M., (eds.) 2004. Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kalland, A., 2009. Unveiling the Whale: Discourses on Whales and Whaling. Berghahn Books, Nesoya. Kalland, A., 1998. “The Anti-Whaling Campaigns and Japanese Responses.” In, Japanese Position on Whaling and the Anti-whaling Campaign, Institute of Cetacean Research (ed.), 11–26. ICR, Tokyo. Kalland, A., 1993. Whale Politics and Green Legitimacy: A Critique of the Anti- Whaling Campaign. Anthropology Today 9 (6), 3–7. Lien, M., 2004. “Dogs, Whales and Kangaroos: Transnational Activism and Food Taboos.” In, The Politics of Food, M. E. Lien and B. Nerlich (eds.). Berg, Oxford. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 2012. International Whaling Commission (IWC). [Online] available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/whale/iwc.html [accessed 22nd May 2012] Miyaoka, I., 2004. Legitimacy in International Society: Japan’s Reaction to Global Wildlife Preservation. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., NY. Nagasaki, F., 1993. “On The Whaling Controversy.” In, Whaling Issues and Japans Whale Research, ICR. [Online] available at, http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_wijwr_naga.html [accessed 20th May 2012] International Whaling Commission, 2003. The Convention. [Online] available at, http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm [accessed 20th May 2012] Tanaka, S., 1984. Whaling and Conservation of Nature- “New Management Procedure.” Journal of Japanese Scientists, Vol. 19 (6) [online] available at, http://luna.pos.to/whale/gen_nmp.html [accessed 20th May 2012] Taylor, R. 2010. IWC draft plan sees end to commercial whaling ban. Reuters. [Online] available at, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/23/us-whaling-idUSTRE61M0RF20100223 [accessed 21st May 2012] The Institute of Cetacean Research, December 2011. JARPA/JARPA II research results. [Online] available at http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPAResults.html [accessed 22nd May 2012] The Fisheries law, 1949 (revised in 1969). [Online] available at http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/jap1710.pdf Tönnesen, J., and Johnsen, A., 1982. The History of Modern Whaling. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Read More