The Whaling in the Antarctic Case (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) decided by the International Court of Justice (hereinafter "ICJ" or "the Court") on 31 March 2014 dealt with the inte...The Whaling in the Antarctic Case (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) decided by the International Court of Justice (hereinafter "ICJ" or "the Court") on 31 March 2014 dealt with the interpretation of specific provisions of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), in particular Article VIII.1, and its complementary instruments, i.e., the Schedule and the Annexes of the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee. The decision of the Court was a remarkable good one. However, its rigorous reasoning focused almost exclusively on the required purpose of "scientific research" of the JARPA II Programme1 permits as set out in the ICRW, approaching the convention as an autonomous self-contained regime which leaves aside other additional grounds. Nonetheless, it would be beneficial for further jurisdictional developments to strengthen the scope of the ICWR system with the applicable provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and other treaties and institutions impinging on whales and whaling, e.g., CITES, Bonn Convention, Antarctic Treaty System, among others. The query remains concerning the unexplored sources of international law ruling Antarctic spaces and species which are absent in the judgment of the Court but may allow an evolutive interpretation of the ICRW.展开更多
文摘The Whaling in the Antarctic Case (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) decided by the International Court of Justice (hereinafter "ICJ" or "the Court") on 31 March 2014 dealt with the interpretation of specific provisions of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), in particular Article VIII.1, and its complementary instruments, i.e., the Schedule and the Annexes of the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee. The decision of the Court was a remarkable good one. However, its rigorous reasoning focused almost exclusively on the required purpose of "scientific research" of the JARPA II Programme1 permits as set out in the ICRW, approaching the convention as an autonomous self-contained regime which leaves aside other additional grounds. Nonetheless, it would be beneficial for further jurisdictional developments to strengthen the scope of the ICWR system with the applicable provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and other treaties and institutions impinging on whales and whaling, e.g., CITES, Bonn Convention, Antarctic Treaty System, among others. The query remains concerning the unexplored sources of international law ruling Antarctic spaces and species which are absent in the judgment of the Court but may allow an evolutive interpretation of the ICRW.
