Source: The High North publication, "The International Harpoon," July 3, 2000, published during the 52nd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in Australia

“The whole convention is geared to promote whaling,” complained Ian Stewart, Whaling Commissioner from New Zealand to the New York Times on May 18,1993. He claimed that the majority of member nations to the IWC no longer agreed with the objectives of their convention, The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, as they had become opposed to commercial whaling.

The signing of agreements is voluntary. If nations don’t agree, they don’t sign. The United States has not signed one of the two UN Conventions on human rights and many western nations have not signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

Nations that at a later stage come to the conclusion that they no longer can or will obey the text of the treaty they have signed should seek a re-negotiation. If they don’t succeed in this, they are confronted with a clear choice: step back from the agreement or live up to the treaty even though they are in disagreement with it. An alternative that should not even be considered is to deliberately violate an agreement of which you are a part. 

But this is exactly the option that a number of countries in the IWC are now practising. 

The objective of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states that it shall “... provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.” Furthermore, it states that depleted stocks are to be preserved, but that “... increases in the size of whale stocks will permit in-creases in the number of whales which may be captured.” All decisions made by the Whaling Commission are to “provide for the conservation, development and optimal utilization of the whale resources, ...shall be based on scientific findings” and “shall take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry.” The IWC member nations are obliged to work actively towards the fulfilment of the treaty’s objectives.

The following statement by Dr. Ray Gambell, Secretary of the Whaling Commission, in a re-port to the European Council (May 1993) makes it clear that a number of countries have declared a position that is not in accordance with the above objectives: 

“Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and the USA have argued that commercial whaling cannot be allowed until there is firm evidence on the status of stocks; that guaranteed control and monitoring systems are in place, and improvements are achieved in the humane killing practices. However, the position of these countries became clearer this year with the statement by the USA that it opposes the resumption of commercial whaling even if these requisite conditions are satisfied.” 

The US Marine Mammal Commission stated in its 1991 proposal for a review of the US whaling policy that total US opposition to commercial whaling obliges the US to re-negotiate the IWC treaty. They have not done so. None of the countries mentioned above even consider stepping back from the treaty.

A request from the High North Alliance for Australia to consider a withdrawal from the IWC was rejected by a spokesman for Environment Minister Robert Hill: “It (the IWC) is an organisation that is evolving and we believe that Australia, New Zealand and other such countries (who sup-port whaling bans) are taking it forward ... Norway and Japan are rooted in the past...,” he stat-ed (The Advertiser, 27 June, 2000).

In the IWC, Norway and Japan are adhering to the principle of sustainable utilisation, in accordance with the Whaling Convention. Australia is adhering to the principle of no utilisation, for what they on a cultural basis consider as “special animals”. It is the first position that is modern and sophisticated. The cultural imperialism practised by Australia is a concept of the past. 

At the 1994 CITES meeting the EU member states declared that they “had noted with satisfaction the consensus.... to extend practical support to the globally agreed principle of sustainable use of the world’s natural re-sources, based on scientific evidence and objective data”. In Agenda 21 from the 1992 UN Conference on the Environment “States commit themselves to the conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources to meet human nutritional needs, as well as social, economic and development goals”. “At it worst the moral of the IWC’s history could be this: Will any nation that signs a global environmental or resource convention find itself ensnared in a regime that appears to discard its original premises and to pay little heed to its own scientific advisors?”, asks US Professor of Environmental Law, Christopher Stone. 

Honest people honour treaties. All international cooperation is totally dependent on pacta sunt servanda (the respect for treaties).

Click here to return to the Management Contents Page