Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Dispute Resolution and Scientific Whaling in the Antarctic

Dispute Resolution and Scientific Whaling in the Antarctic * Dr Richard Caddell, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht University. In recent years, few issues have polarised public opinion and international relations in the Asia-Pacific Region more acutely than the position of lethal scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean. Since the International Whaling Commission ( IWC ), the pre-eminent global management authority exercising regulatory competence over great whales, introduced a moratorium on commercial hunting in 1982, there has been considerable agitation in particular quarters for the eventual resumption of whaling. Under the terms of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946 ( ICRW ), 1 commercial quotas have been set at zero since the 1985/1986 whaling seasons, 2 pending the elusive development of a new and universally acceptable series of management controls. In the interim, a small number of States have sought to pursue their whaling ambitions through a series of regulatory exceptions. Parties to the ICRW may enter reservations to this general position, as has been exercised by Norway and, somewhat more contentiously, Iceland in re-joining the IWC , 3 while a parallel regime for so-called “aboriginal” whaling has long been recognised as a distinct mechanism to ensure that the subsistence http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy Brill

Dispute Resolution and Scientific Whaling in the Antarctic

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/dispute-resolution-and-scientific-whaling-in-the-antarctic-HOv45L0Z0v
Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
Subject
Articles
ISSN
2451-9367
eISSN
2451-9391
DOI
10.1163/24519391-00101011
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

* Dr Richard Caddell, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht University. In recent years, few issues have polarised public opinion and international relations in the Asia-Pacific Region more acutely than the position of lethal scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean. Since the International Whaling Commission ( IWC ), the pre-eminent global management authority exercising regulatory competence over great whales, introduced a moratorium on commercial hunting in 1982, there has been considerable agitation in particular quarters for the eventual resumption of whaling. Under the terms of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946 ( ICRW ), 1 commercial quotas have been set at zero since the 1985/1986 whaling seasons, 2 pending the elusive development of a new and universally acceptable series of management controls. In the interim, a small number of States have sought to pursue their whaling ambitions through a series of regulatory exceptions. Parties to the ICRW may enter reservations to this general position, as has been exercised by Norway and, somewhat more contentiously, Iceland in re-joining the IWC , 3 while a parallel regime for so-called “aboriginal” whaling has long been recognised as a distinct mechanism to ensure that the subsistence

Journal

Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and PolicyBrill

Published: Jun 3, 2016

There are no references for this article.