Hot issues

Iceland 

Is Iceland a member to the IWC? Some say yes and some say no. It’s a complex legal argument, so stay tuned:

What happened

  • Iceland left the IWC in 1992 in protest against the continuation of the whaling moratorium.

  • On 6 June 2001, Iceland re-entered the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the agreement that establishes the IWC.

  • The re-entry was accompanied with a reservation to the whaling moratorium (paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule). This reservation means that the moratorium does not apply to Iceland.

  • At last year’s IWC meeting Iceland’s re-entry caused an intense controversy.

  • Firstly, the IWC voted on whether the IWC is competent to decide whether or not it will accept Iceland’s reservation. This vote was carried with the tightest majority possible, 19 to 18 that IWC could decide.

  • Secondly, the IWC decided that it “should not accept the reservation formulated by Iceland”. There were 19 votes in favour, none against, three abstentions and 16 members did not even participate in the vote because they found it illegal.

  • Thirdly, there was a vote that Iceland’s voting right should be removed; 18 in favour, 16 against and three abstentions.

  • When votes were cast, Iceland’s vote was not asked for. But after each voting, Iceland pointed out that its vote was not counted and that it should have been counted. The nations supportive of Iceland also said that Iceland’s vote should be counted.

  • Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Mexico, the UK and the USA have sent letters of protest on Iceland’s return to the IWC with a reservation.

  • In a legal analysis by Switzerland, it is argued that Iceland’s re-entry to the IWC with a reservation on the whaling ban is “in conformity with international law”. One reason being that Iceland’s re-entry is in conformity with the purpose and objective of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

 Iceland’s argument

  • As a Contracting Party to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the agreement that establishes the IWC, Iceland is automatically a member to the IWC.

  • The reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the ICRW.

  • Reservations made by Chile, Peru and Ecuador in the past when joining the ICRW were not addressed by the IWC.

  • Objection to a reservation is a bilateral treaty relationship between the country objecting to the reservation and the country having lodged an objection. The UK and Germany followed this practice when they objected formally to Peru’s reservation.

  • The moratorium was to be ended in 1990 at the latest, therefore Iceland’s reservation to this decision is compatible with the object and purpose of the ICRW; which is to regulate whaling, not to prevent whaling regardless of the scientific knowledge.

High North Alliance opinion

The High North Alliance believes that the moratorium decision is null, void, outdated, illegal and runs counter to the object and purpose of the ICRW. The conflict between the moratorium decision and the ICRW compels all IWC members to make a choice, since they cannot in honesty honour both at the same time. The High North Alliance believes that the choice is obviously to favour the objective of the ICRW over the moratorium. With making a reservation to the moratorium, Iceland has made it clear that its choice is to honour the object and purpose of the ICRW.