From our private database of 36,900+ case briefs...
Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
725 F.3d 940 (2013)
Facts
In 1946, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was passed. The ICRW provided that whale hunting was permissible if a signatory nation granted the hunter a research permit. The United States and Japan were among the signatories to the ICRW. As authorized under the ICRW, Japan issued a research permit to researchers associated with the Institute of Cetacean Research (Cetacean) (plaintiff). While Cetacean was on the high seas, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (Sea Shepherd) (defendant), in protest to whale hunting, damaged Cetacean’s ship and threw containers of acid and smoke bombs at the crew. Cetacean sued Sea Shepherd under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, which creates a cause of action for a committed tort that is violative of a treaty or the law of nations. Cetacean alleged that Sea Shepherd violated the law of nations, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the High Seas Convention by committing piracy. The district court dismissed the case on the ground that Sea Shepherd’s actions did not meet the definition of piracy provided in the conventions. Cetacean appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 36,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.