Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening)
International Court of Justice
2014 I.C.J. General List No. 148 (March 31)
Recent advancing technology in the whaling industry had caused massive reductions in whale populations, resulting in near-extinction for some whale species. Nations that participated in the whaling industry aimed to fix this problem by entering into multilateral treaties to restrict the killing of whales. When these treaties did not achieve significant results, the United States called an international conference, the result of which was the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). The ICRW created the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which was comprised of representatives from each nation that was a party to the treaty. After environmental awareness began to grow, numerous anti-whaling countries ratified the ICRW and joined the IWC. In 1982, the IWC imposed a general moratorium upon commercial whaling and later established a whale sanctuary. Japan (defendant) cast the only negative vote against these measures. The moratorium included two exceptions, one allowing for aboriginal-subsistence whaling and the other allowing nations to grant licenses for whaling for scientific-research purposes. Japan continued its whaling program, JARPA II, which used lethal methods to catch whales, under the scientific-research exception. In May 2010, Australia (plaintiff) sued Japan, claiming that JARPA II violated the moratorium. Australia’s and Japan’s opposing arguments highlighted different interpretations of the goals and purpose of the ICRW, as outlined in the Preamble, and the meaning of Article VIII, which provided for the scientific-research exception and stated that whaling conducted under an Article VIII license was not subject to the moratorium’s obligations. The Preamble of the ICRW further indicated that the purpose of the ICRW was to ensure the conservation of whales while permitting the sustainable exploitation of whales.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning
Concurrence/Dissent (Charlesworth, J.)
Dissent (Owada, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.