Conceptions and (Mis)conceptions of Science in International Treaties; the ICJ Whaling Case in Context
In: The Yearbook of Polar Law OnlineSearch for other papers by Brendan Gogarty in
Current site
Google Scholar
The recent judgment in the International Court of Justice case Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) determined that Japanese ‘special permit’ whaling in the Southern Ocean was not ‘for the purposes of scientific research’. This is the only exemption permitted under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling’s current moratorium on commercial whaling. The Court made its determination by characterising the Japanese research program as a scientific program, but failing to define what scientific research actually was or was not. This paper presents the background to the decision, and challenges the reasoning of the Court and its standard of review test. It concludes that the Court failed to take the opportunity to offer a clear determination to states on their legal–scientific obligations within international law.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 517 | 159 | 3 |
| Full Text Views | 174 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 76 | 5 | 0 |
Conceptions and (Mis)conceptions of Science in International Treaties; the ICJ Whaling Case in Context
In: The Yearbook of Polar Law OnlineSearch for other papers by Brendan Gogarty in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
The recent judgment in the International Court of Justice case Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) determined that Japanese ‘special permit’ whaling in the Southern Ocean was not ‘for the purposes of scientific research’. This is the only exemption permitted under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling’s current moratorium on commercial whaling. The Court made its determination by characterising the Japanese research program as a scientific program, but failing to define what scientific research actually was or was not. This paper presents the background to the decision, and challenges the reasoning of the Court and its standard of review test. It concludes that the Court failed to take the opportunity to offer a clear determination to states on their legal–scientific obligations within international law.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 517 | 159 | 3 |
| Full Text Views | 174 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 76 | 5 | 0 |
