Japan's whaling is illegal

Hi,

Today I would like to focus on the legal opinions which we have obtained that outline the violations of international treaties by Japan ( and Norway and Iceland).

The Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an historic convention which was drawn up to protect the resources of the oceans and the oceans themselves.

Japan is in violation of the following provisions of the Convention. It is worth knowing these provisions if any of you want to take up the issue with your politicians. Be aware that the US has never ratified the Law of the Sea but under international common law, the US is still obliged to adhere to the obligations of the convention.

Articles 192 and 235 of the Law of the Sea Convention require Japan to “protect and preserve the marine environment,” including the more specific duty under Article 194(5) “to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life.” Japan’s “scientific” harvesting of endangered Fin, Sei, and Humpback whales is a direct violation of this obligation.

Article 241 of the Law of the Sea Convention states that marine scientific research “shall not constitute the legal basis for any claim to any part of the marine environment or its resources.” Japan’s claim to hundreds of whales each year in the name of scientific research would appear to violate this provision directly.

Articles 204-06 of the Law of the Sea Convention require Japan to prepare and disseminate an environmental impact statement regarding its scientific whaling, because “planned activities under [its] jurisdiction or control may cause...significant and harmful changes to the marine environment.” See also Principle 17 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted June 14, 1992, by the UN Conference on Environment and Development, 31 I.L.M. 876 (1992), which says that: “Environmental impact assessments, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.” To meet this requirement an environmental impact assessment must discuss the probable impact of the proposed action on the environment and the adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented, and must compare the costs and benefits of each alternative with the proposed action, including the alternative of no action. A sound environmental impact assessment should be the product of interdisciplinary analysis and ample opportunities must be provided for public input during the assessment process. "

These are violations from one convention only. In the coming days, I ll detail the violations under other conventions. Please also be aware that ONLY governments can mount legal action in international courts. We have explored any options available legally to force either the USA, UK, Australia and NZ governments to take action against Japan but there is no legislation which allows for the public interest in this awful dilemma. The public is shut out of the issue, governments rule the day. Which is why we MUST lobby our governments.

regards, Sue