Case Title: Whaling in the Antarctic, 31 March 2014

Australia
vs.
Japan
New Zealand (Intervening)
Facts:
On 1937, a multilateral treaty, 1937 International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, has been agreed by different
countries whose purpose is to secure the prosperity of the whaling industry and to maintain stock of whales. Its
implementing agency is the The International Whaling Commission (IWC).
Australia, Japan, and New Zealand are a few of the countries who signed this treaty and has respectively ratified the same
into law.
This treaty provides authority to the Contracting government, to any of its nations a special permit authorizing that national
to kill, take and treat whales for purposes for purposes of scientific.
In pursuant to this treaty, Japan created Japanese Whale Research Program (JARPA and JARPA II) whose objective is to
collect scientific data to contribute for the preservation of the whale stocks and to the whaling industry.
Australia contended the JARPA program is just a disguise, as Japan's main purpose is for a continuous commercial whaling
activity, and not because of research. Furthermore, Australia mentioned that the objectives of JARPA has not been met with
respect to its implementation.
Australia prayed to the court that it will cease the operation and permit authorizing the implementation the JARPA/JARPA
II, as it violates Article VIII, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Issues:
Whether or not Japan has abuse its discretion in granting special permit.
Whether or not JARPA/JARPA II has violated Article VIII, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Ruling:
Yes. Japan has abused its discretion in granting special permit.
Japan as a contracting party of the treaty should always uphold the good intentions of the Convention. Its failure of ensuring
that killing of whales through the JARPA program for commercial purposes is a grave abuse of its authority. Furthermore, it
aggressively pushes JARPA II program for its continuous whaling activity.
Yes. JARPA/JARPA II has violated Article VII, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
JARPA/JARPA II intentions are clearly for research purposes, however its implementation is not the same as its define
objectives. It failed on the follow areas:
a. its objective sample size is not the same with its actual catch;
b. it did not share its findings to the scientific community;
c. the distribution of its species for sample is not consistent to its objective; and
d. its defined periodic review the whaling species is not relevant to research objective.
Thus, the court orders Japan to refrain from granting permits and to revoke the licensed granted in relation to the JARPA II
program.