THE PROTECTION OF WHALES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JUDGMENT OF JAPON AND AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND ON THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Abstract

The most comprehensive arrangements for the protection of whales in international law are placed in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (IWCR). According to this agreement whales can be hunted for scientific purposes. There is also a decision prohibiting commercial whaling, taken by the Commission (IWC), which was set up to implement the provisions of the agreement. Japan based her whaling activities in Antarctica and Southern Ocean in the extent of JARPA II program on the provision of the agreement that allow whaling for scientific purposes. The legal issue was brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to resolve the dispute and to understand the scope of the dispute by Australia on the grounds that this activity constituted a breach of the relevant provision of the contract. As a result of this case, the ICJ concluded that the whaling program conducted by Japan for scientific research named JARPA II violated the provision of the contract which allows "whaling for scientific purposes". In this article International Regulations on Whaling, and the decree of ICJ related to relevant dispute will be examined.

Keywords

• Whales,International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling,Internatıonal Whaling Commision,JARPA II,International Court Of Justice

Uluslararası Hukukta Balinaların Korunması Ve Uluslararası Adalet Divanının Japonya- Avustralya & Yeni Zelanda Kararı

Abstract

Uluslararası hukukta balinaların korunması konusunda en kapsamlı düzenlemeler Uluslararası Balina Avcılığının Düzenlenmesi Sözleşmesi’nde (IWCR) yer almaktadır. Bu sözleşme uyarınca balinalar bilimsel amaçlar doğrultusunda avlanabilirler. Ayrıca sözleşme hükümlerinin uygulanmasını sağlamak amacıyla kurulan Komisyonun (IWC) ticari balina avcılığını yasakladığı bir kararı bulunmaktadır. Japonya, JARPA II programı çerçevesinde Antarktika’da, Güney Okyanusu’nda sürdürmüş olduğu balina avlama faaliyetini sözleşmenin bilimsel amaçlar doğrultusunda balina avlanabileceğine ilişkin hükmüne dayandırmaktadır. Bu kapsamda yapılan bu faaliyetin sözleşmenin ilgili hükmünün ihlalini oluşturduğu gerekçesiyle Avustralya tarafından ilgili uyuşmazlığın çözümlenmesi ve söz konusu hükmün kapsamının anlaşılması amacıyla, hukuki sorun Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın önüne getirilmiştir. Bu dava sonucunda Uluslararası Adalet Divanı, Japonya’nın JARPA II adlı bilimsel araştırma amacıyla yürüttüğü balina avlama programının sözleşmenin “bilimsel amaçlarla balina avlanabileceğine” ilişkin hükmünü ihlal ettiği sonucuna varmıştır. Bu makalede balina avcılığına ilişkin uluslararası düzenlemelerle, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın ilgili uyuşmazlığın çözümüne yönelik olarak vermiş olduğu bu karar incelenecektir. Anahtar Kelimeler:

Keywords

• Balinalar,Uluslararası Balina Avcılığının Düzenlenmesi Sözleşmesi,Uluslararası Balina Avcılığı Komisyonu,JARPA II,Uluslararası Adalet Divanı

References

1. Alexandar, Kristina (2013). “The International Whaling Convention (IWC) and Legal Issues Related to Aboriginal Rights”, Congressional Research Service, 22, 1-18.
2. Birnie, Patricia; Boyle, Alan; Redgwell, Katherina (2009). International Law and the Environment, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Bobcook, Hope M. (2013). “Why Changing Norms is a More Just Solution to the Failed International Regulatory Regime to Protect Whales than a Trading Program in Whale Shares”, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 32 (3), 3-85.
4. Bowman, Micheal; Davier Peter; Redgwell, Catherine (2010). Lyster’s International Wild Life, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Caddell, Richard (2014). “Science Friction: Antarctic Research Whaling and the International Court of Justice”, Journal of Environmental Law, 26, 331-340.
6. Clapham, Phillip J.(2015). “Japon’s whaling following the International Court of Justice ruling: Brave New World- or Business as Usual”, Marina Policy, 51, 238-241.
7. Dicenso, Matt (2016). “Trouble on the High Seas: A Need for Change In the Wake of Australia v. Japan”, Boston College Internatıonal and Comparative Law Review, 39 (3) , 13-27.
8. Geddis, Elana; Penelope, Ridings(2013). “ Whaling ın the Antarctic: Some Reflections By Counsel”, New Zealand Yearbook of International Law, (11), 143-158.

9. Gillespie, Alexander (2000). “Whaling Under a Scientific Auspice: The Ethics of Scientific Research Whaling Operations”, Journal of International Wildlife Law Policy, 3 (1), 1-49
10. Gross, Guillaume (2015). “The ICJ’s Handling of Science in the Whaling in the Antarctic Case: A Whale of a Case”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 6, 578-620.
11. Harari, Yuval Noah (2017). Hayvanlardan Tanrılara Sapiens: İnsan Türünün Kısa Bir Tarihi, İstanbul: Kolektif Kitap.
12. Hoyt, Erich; Hvenegaard, Glen T(2002). “ A Review a Whale - Watching and Whaling with Applications for the Caribbean”, Coastal Management, 30 (4), 381-399.
13. Lima, Lucas Carlos (2015), “The Evidential Weight of Experts before the ICJ: Reflections on the Whaling in the Antarctic Case”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 6, 621-635.
14. Papastavrou, Vassili (1996), “Sustainable use of whales: whaling or whale watching”, Taylor ,Victoria J.; Dunstone, Nigel(Der.). The Exploitation of Mammal Populations, London: Chapman/Hall, 102-113.
15. Sand, Peter H. (2008), “Japan’s ‘Research Whaling’ in the Antarctic Southern Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean in the Face of the Endangered Species Convention (CITES )”, RECIEL, 17 (1), 56-71.
16. Scott, Shirley V. (2014), “Australia’s Decision to Initiate Whaling ın the Antarctic: winning the case versus resolving the dispute”, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68 (1), 1-16.
17. Şimşek, Galip Engin (2016), Uluslararası Hukukta Doğal Hayatın Korunması, İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
18. Wicherd, Rachel Nussbaum; Nusbaum, Martha C. (2017). “Scientific Whaling? The Scientific Research Exception and the Future of the International Whaling Commission”, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18 (3), 356-369.
19. Council Regulation (ECC) No 348/81 of 20 January 1981 on common rules for imports of whales or other catecean produsts. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31981R0348&from=EN. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
20. 1986-Appendix 2 Resolution on Special Permits for Scientific Research file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/RS2061_1986%20All%20Resolutions.pdf (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017). file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/RS2055_1979_3.pdf: 31st Annual Meeting, 1979 (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 30) IWC Resolution 1979-3 Resolution in Relation to the Establishment of a Whale Sanctuary in the Indian Ocean. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
21. International Whaling Commission, https://iwc.int/commercial. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
22. International Whaling Commission, https://iwc.int/iwcmain. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
23. International Whaling Commission, https://iwc.int/commission-sub-groups. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
24. Resolution 2007-1, Resolution on JARPA, file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/RS2082_Resolution_2007_1.pdf) (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
25. Research Plan for New Scientific Whale Research Program in the Antarctic Ocean (NEWREP-A) The Government of Japan, http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/151127newrep-a.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
26. Summary of Main Outcomes, Decisions and Requıred Actıons from the 66th Annual Meeting. https://iwc.int/private/downloads/StI1_9iNdpWlnmS7jUUtXg/RS6360_66_Main_OutcomesV2.pdf(Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
27. “Tarihi Kararla Balinalar Kazandı”, http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/cevre/56771/Tarihi_kararla_balinalar_kazandi.html. (Erişim Tarihi 25.09.2017).
28. “The Whales have won- ‘ICJ Rules Japon’s Southern Ocean Whaling’ Not For Scientific Research. http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-commentary/news/the-whales-have-won-icj-rules-japan-s-southern-ocean-whaling-not-for-scientific-research.html. (Erişim Tarihi 29.07.2017).
29. Whaling In the Antarctıc, 31.03.2014, (Australia v Japan: New Zealand intervening) http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/148/148-20140331-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi 29.07.2017).
30. Whaling In the Antarctic, Australia v Japan (Decleration of Intervention of New Zealand), 06.02.2013, Order, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/148/148-20130206-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi 29.07.2017).
31. https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=3607&k=(Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
32. https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=3606&k=(Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
33. http://hayvanlar-alemi38.webnode.com.tr/memeliler/sudaki-memeliler/balinalar/ (Erişim Tarihi 27.09.2017)
34. http://www.whalefacts.org/history-of-whaling. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017)
35. http://www.whalefacts.org/history-of-whaling/, History of Whaling., Whale Facts: Marina Mammal Facts/ Information. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017)
36. https://iwc.int/sanctuaries. Whale Sancturies : Establishment of the International Whaling Commisions Sancturies. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
37. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017).
38. http://www.greenpeace.org/turkey/tr/campaigns/defending-our-mediterranean/balinalar/ (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017)
39. http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/our-history.html. (Erişim Tarihi 29.09.2017)