The Other Australia/Japan Living Marine Resources Dispute

Inferences on the Merits of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration in Light of the Whaling Case

in Brill Research Perspectives in the Law of the Sea
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

In 2000 an arbitral tribunal formed under Annex vii to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea denied its own jurisdiction to hear the case brought against Japan by Australia and New Zealand over Japan’s unilateral experimental fishing programme for southern bluefin tuna. Despite the criticism the tribunal’s reasoning attracted, it was widely supposed that the applicants would have failed on the merits because of the reluctance of international courts and tribunals to delve into scientific matters, as would have been necessary with the dispute’s underlying cause being the parties’ scientific disagreements regarding both the tuna stock itself and the nature and risks of the programme. In 2014, however, the International Court of Justice showed no such reticence in deciding in Australia’s favour the case against Japan’s scientific whaling, based partly on flaws it identified in the design of that experiment. Reviewing the evolution in the tuna experiment’s design, the propositions it was designed to (dis)prove and the use to which Japan proposed to put that proof, this paper suggests that similar factors were at play in both disputes and that a similar outcome of the tuna case, though not inevitable, would have been amply justified.

Sections

References

Agreement Establishing the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission unts 1993 November 25 1927 329 Rome

Agreement for the Establishment of the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council unts 1948 February 26 120 59 Baguio

Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks unts 1995 August 42167 3 New York

Agreement on Fisheries between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan unts 1979 October 17 1217 3 Canberra

Agreement on Fisheries between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Japan unts 1978 September 1 1167 441 Wellington

ArmstrongC.W. ‘Co-operative Solutions in a Transboundary Fishery: The Russian-Norwegian Co-Management of the Arcto-Norwegian Cod Stock’ Marine Resource Economics 1994 9 329

BoyleA. StokkeO.S. ‘Problems of Compulsory Jurisdiction and the Settlement of Disputes Relating to Straddling Fish Stocks’ Governing High Seas Fisheries: The Interplay of Global and Regional Regimes 2001 Oxford University Press 91

BoyleA. ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly 2001 50 447

Bureau of Rural Resources Reports of the Trilateral Scientific Discussions among Australia, Japan and New Zealand on Southern Bluefin Tuna 1982–1991 1992 Bureau of Rural Resources Working Paper No. WP/10/92;

BurkeW.T. The New International Law of Fisheries: unclos 1982 and Beyond 1994 Clarendon Press

ButterworthD.S.IanelliJ.N.HilbornR. ‘A Statistical Model for Stock Assessment of Southern Bluefin Tuna with Temporal Changes in Selectivity’ African Journal of Marine Science 2003 25 331

ButterworthD.S.PenneyA.J. PayneA.I.L.O’BrienC.M.RogersS.I. ‘Allocation in High Seas Fisheries: Avoiding Meltdown’ Management of Shared Fish Stocks 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 165

CampbellH.HerrickS.F.JrSquiresD. ‘The Role of Research in Fisheries Management: The Conservation of Dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific and the Exploitation of Southern Bluefin Tuna in the Southern Ocean’ Ocean Development & International Law 2000 31 347

CatonA.McLoughlinK.WilliamsM.J. Southern bluefin tuna: scientific background to the debate 1990 Australian Government Publishing Service

ChurchillR.R.LoweA.V. The Law of the Sea 1999 3rd edn Manchester University Press

ClarkC.W. Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources 1990 2nd edn John Wiley & Sons

ColletteB.B.NauenC.E. FAO Species Catalogue Vol. 2: Scombrids of the World: An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Tunas, Mackerels, Bonitos and Related Species Known to Date 1983 2 125 FAO fao Fisheries Synopsis

ColsonD.A.HoyleP. ‘Satisfying the Procedural Prerequisites to the Compulsory Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: Did the Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal Get It Right?’ Ocean Development & International Law 2003 34 59

Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna unts 1993 May 10 1819 359 Canberra

Convention on Conservation and Management of the High Seas Fishery Resources of the South Pacific Ocean un 2009 November 14 13 July 2015 Auckland registration no 50553 <https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/50553/Part/I-50553-0800000280363a44.pdf>

Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea International Legal Materials 1994 June 16 34 67 Washington dc

CushingD.H. Science and the Fisheries 1977 Edward Arnold

de YturriagaJ.A. The International Regime of Fisheries: From UNCLOS 1982 to the Presential Sea 1997 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea 2002 November 4 2 April 2016 Phnom Penh <http://www.asean.org/?static_post=declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-china-sea-3&category_id=32>

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) itlos 2012 (Judgment) Rep 4

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) icj (Judgment) Rep 1984 246

EverhartW.H.YoungsW.D. Principles of Fishery Science 1981 2nd edn Cornell University Press

FosterC.E. ‘The “Real Dispute” in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case: a Scientific Dispute?’ International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 2001 16 571

FoxW.W.Jr ‘An Exponential Surplus-Yield Model for Optimizing Exploited Fish Populations’ Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1970 99 80

FuC.MohnR.FanningL.P. ‘Why the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) stock off eastern Nova Scotia has not recovered’ Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2001 58 1613

FujinamiN. DoulmanD.J. ‘Development of Japan’s Tuna Fisheries’ Tuna Issues and Perspectives in the Pacific Islands Region 57 (Pacific Islands Development Program 1987)

In Proceedings Conducted by the Review Panel Established under Article 17 and Annex II of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of the High Seas Fishery Resources of the South Pacific Ocean with regard to the Objection by the Russian Federation to a Decision of the Commission of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation 2013 July 5 24 July 2015 Findings and Recommendations of the Review Panel <https://pcacases.com/web/view/33>

In the Matter of an Arbitration before an Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China) 2 April 2016 (Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Order of 29 October 2015) pca Case No. 2013–19, <http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1506>

Industries Assistance Commission Report on Southern Bluefin Tuna 1984 Australian Government Publishing Service

International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas unts 1966 May 14 673 63 Rio de Janeiro

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling unts 1946 December 2 161 72 Washington

KambonaJ.J.MarashiS.H. Process for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (fao Fisheries Circular No 913; fao 1996)

KawanoM. ‘L’affaire du Thon à nageoire bleue et les chevauchements de juridictions internationales’ Annuaire Français de Droit International 2003 XLIX 516

KayeS.B. International Fisheries Management 2001 Kluwer Law International

KennedyJ.O.S.DaviesL.CoxA. Joint Rent Maximisation and Open Access Competition in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery 6 August 2015 (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics Conference Paper 99.1) <http://data.daff.gov.au/brs/data/warehouse/pe_abarebrs99000382/PR11266.pdf>

KirkwoodG.P. ‘Estimation of von Bertalanffy Growth Curve Parameter using both Length Increment and Age-Length Data’ Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1983 40 1405

KoersA.W. International Regulation of Marine Fisheries: A Study of Regional Fisheries Organizations 1973 Fishing News (Books) Ltd

KwiatkowskaB. ‘The Australia and New Zealand v. Japan Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Award of the First Law of the Sea Convention Annex vii Arbitral Tribunal’ International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 2001 16 239

KwiatkowskaB. ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Tribunal Did Get It Right: A Commentary and Reply to the Article by David A. Colson and Dr. Peggy Hoyle’ Ocean Development & International Law 2003 34 369

MaguireJ-J. NordquistM.H.Norton MooreJ. ‘Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute’ Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2000 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 201

MajkowskiJ.ArrizabalagaH.CarocciF.MuruaH. ‘Tuna and Tuna-like Species’ fao, Review of the state of world marine fishery resources 227 (fao Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 569, fao 2011) http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2389e/i2389e.pdf

MansfieldB. ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration: Comments on Professor Barbara Kwiatkowska’s Article’ International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 2001 16 361

MansfieldB. Oude ElferinkA.G.RothwellD.R. ‘Compulsory Dispute Settlement after the Southern Bluefin Tuna Award’ Oceans Management in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses 2004 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 255

MatsudaY. DoulmanD.J. ‘Postwar Development and Expansion of Japan’s Tuna Fishery’ Tuna Issues and Perspectives in the Pacific Islands Region 71 (Pacific Islands Development Program 1987)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China ‘Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines’ 2014 December 7 2 April 2016 <http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml>

MorganD.L. NordquistM.H.Norton MooreJ. ‘A Practitioner’s Critique of the Order Granting Provisional Measures in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases’ Current Marine Environmental Issues and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 2001 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 173

MorganD.L. ‘Implications of the Proliferation of International Legal Fora: The Example of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases’ Harvard International Law Journal 2002 43 541

mox Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom) itlos 2001 (Provisional Measures) Rep 95

MunroG.R.ScottA.D. KneeseA.V.SweeneyJ.L. ‘The Economics of Fisheries Management’ Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics 1985 vol II Elsevier 623

NordquistM.H. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: A Commentary (Editor-in-Chief) vol ii (S.N. Nandan, S. Rosenne (vol eds) and N.R. Grandy (assistant ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993); vol iii (S.N. Nandan and S. Rosenne (vol eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1995); vol v (S. Rosenne and L.B. Sohn (vol eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989)

Orrego VicuñaF. ‘From the 1893 Bering Sea Fur Seals Case to the 1999 Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases: A Century of Efforts at Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas’ Yearbook of International Environmental Law 1999 10 40

Orrego VicuñaF. The Changing International Law of High Seas Fisheries 1999 Cambridge University Press

OtaniY. AndoN.McWhinneyE.WolfrumR. ‘Quelques réflexions sur la juridiction et la recevabilité vis-à-vis de l’Affaire du thon à nageoire bleue Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda 2002 Kluwer Law International 731

OxmanB.H. ‘Complementary Agreements and Compulsory Jurisdiction’ American Journal of International Law 2001 95 277

PeelJ. ‘A Paper Umbrella Which Dissolves in the Rain? The Future for Resolving Fisheries Disputes under unclos in the Aftermath of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration’ Melbourne Journal of International Law 2002 3 53

PitcherT.J.HartP.J.B. Fisheries Ecology 1982 Croom Helm

PolacheckT. ShomuraR.S.MajkowskiJ.LangiS. ‘An overview of interaction issues among the fisheries for Southern Bluefin Tuna’ Interactions of Pacific Tuna Fisheries: Proceedings of the First FAO Expert Consultation on Interactions of Pacific Tuna Fisheries 1991 December 3–11 vol 1 264 (fao Technical Paper 336/1, fao 1994)

PolacheckT. ‘Experimental catches and the precautionary approach: the Southern Bluefin Tuna dispute’ Marine Policy 2002 26 283

PolacheckT.KlaerN.L.MillarC.PreeceA.L. ‘An initial variation of management strategies for the southern bluefin tuna fishery’ ices [International Council for the Exploration of the Sea] Journal of Marine Science 1999 56 811

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) Judgment icj 2010 Rep 14

RickerW.E. ‘Stock and Recruitment’ Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 1954 11 559

RöbenV. ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases: Re-Regionalization of the Settlement of Law of the Sea Disputes?’ Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 2002 62 61

RomanoC. ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute: Hints of a World to Come . . . Like It or Not’ Ocean Development & International Law 2001 32 313

RothschildB.J.SudaA. GullandJ. ‘Population Dynamics of Tuna’ Fish Population Dynamics 1977 John Wiley & Sons 309

SchaeferM.B. ‘Some Considerations of Population Dynamics and Economics in Relation to the Management of Commercial Fisheries’ Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 1957 14 669

ScheiberH.N. ‘Origins of the Abstention Doctrine in Ocean Law: Japanese-U.S. Relations and the Pacific Fisheries, 1937–1958’ Ecology Law Quarterly 1989 16 23

SerdyA. ‘One fin, two fins, red fins, bluefins: some problems of nomenclature and taxonomy affecting legal instruments governing tuna and other highly migratory species’ Marine Policy 2004 28 235

SerdyA. ‘The Paradoxical Success of UNCLOS Part XV: A Half-Hearted Reply to Rosemary Rayfuse’ Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 2005 36 713

SerdyA. ‘Accounting for Catch in Internationally Managed Fisheries: What Role for State Responsibility?’ Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 2010 15 23

SerdyA. ‘Implementing Article 28 of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement: The First Review of a Conservation Measure in the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation’ Ocean Development & International Law 2016 47 1

SerdyA. The New Entrants Problem in International Fisheries Law 2016 Cambridge University Press

Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan) riaa 2000 August 4 XXIII 1 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan) 5 August 2015 Government of Japan, Cases Concerning the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna [sic] (Memorial on Jurisdiction of Japan) <https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Documents/Memorial%20on%20Jurisdiction%20of%20Japan.pdf>

Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan) 6 August 2015 Reply on Jurisdiction [of] Australia and New Zealand <https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Documents/Reply%20on%20Jurisdiction%20of%20Australia%20and%20New%20Zealand.pdf>

Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) itlos 1999 (Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999) Rep 280

Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) 6 August 2015 Statements of Claim under art 1 of Annex vii to unclos <https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Documents/Statement%20of%20Claim%20of%20Australia%20and%20New%20Zealand.pdf>

Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) itlos 14 August 2015 Response and Counter-Request for Provisional Measures submitted by Japan doc F4/155/198 <https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_3_4/statement_response_japan_eng.pdf>

StephensT. ‘The Limits of International Adjudication in International Environmental Law: Another Perspective on the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case’ International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 2004 19 177

TanakaN. ‘Some Observations on the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration Award’ Japanese Annual of International Law 2001 44 9

ThorogoodJ. ‘Age and Growth Rate Determination of Southern Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus maccoyii, Using Otolith Banding’ Journal of Fish Biology 2006 30 7

Treaty of Peace with Japan unts 1951 September 8 136 45 San Francisco

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea unts 1982 December 10 1833 3 Montego Bay

Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) icj 2014 (Judgment) Rep 226

WilliamsS. ‘Understanding Japanese seafood markets’ Australian Fisheries 1992 51 2 32

38

In 1950, the iwc created a Scientific Committee whose tasks under paragraph 30 of the Schedule include reviewing and commenting on special permits before they are issued by States parties to their nationals for purposes of scientific research under art. viii(1) of the icrw: ibid. 248 [47]. Since the mid-1980s, the Scientific Committee has conducted its review of special permits on the basis of guidelines issued or endorsed by the iwc. When jarpa ii was proposed in 2005, the applicable guidelines had been collected in a document titled ‘Annex Y: Guidelines for the Review of Scientific Permit Proposals’. The current guidelines are found in a newer document, ‘Annex P: Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposals and Research Results from Existing and Completed Permits’. See ibid. 252 [58] and 257 [84].

123

This began as early as 1989, when Australia noted in the management meeting that catches by other parties had not been included in the virtual population analysis projections (explained infra Appendix n. 296) considered by the scientists, which added to the need for a cautious approach: Southern Bluefin Tuna Trilateral Management Discussions Eighth Meeting (Summary Record) (18–21 September 1989) (unpublished, copy held by author extracted from dpie files) 27. When the meeting reconvened a month later Australia said the Taiwanese and Korean catch figures provided by Japan were substantially lower than its own estimate; Australia would thus not accept without further discussion the statement by Japan that future parental biomass estimates still increased even with catches by Taiwan and Korea included in the estimates: Draft Summary Record Reconvened Trilateral Management Meeting for SBT (8–18 October 1989) (unpublished, copy held by author extracted from dpie files) 3–4 (hereinafter October 1989 Draft Summary Record).

221

Mansfield (2001) (n. 3) 365.

Figures

  • The area for which the Japanese 1998 experimental fishing intended to estimate the relative density of sbt in fished and unfished 5° squares and the relative amount of effort within different portions of this area.247
    View in gallery

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 39 39 24
Full Text Views 5 5 4
PDF Downloads 2 2 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0