2021•Unpublished venueRequires access

Legal Analysis of the judgment of the International Court of Justice on the Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening)

Abbas Poorhashemi, Sahar Zarei

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Environmental protection is confronted by many political, economic, and social problems. In the case regarding Whaling in the Antarctic, (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) in March 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided that the Japanese whaling programme in the Antarctic (JARPA II, in force since 2005) did not consider as a “scientific research objectives.” In this perspective, the Court concluded that the catching, taking and killing of whales under this programme did not qualify as an exemption provided in the Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1964), which authorizes the contracting parties the capture of whales for scientific research purposes. The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze the ICJ’s judgment in this case and to demonstrate the opportunities and challenges of this judgment in the progressive development of international environmental law.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Environmental protection is confronted by many political, economic, and social problems. In the case regarding Whaling in the Antarctic, (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) in March 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided that the Japanese whaling programme in the Antarctic (JARPA II, in force since 2005) did not consider as a “scientific research objectives.” In this perspective, the Court concluded that the catching, taking and killing of whales under this programme did not qualify as an exemption provided in the Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1964), which authorizes the contracting parties the capture of whales for scientific research purposes. The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze the ICJ’s judgment in this case and to demonstrate the opportunities and challenges of this judgment in the progressive development of international environmental law.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Environmental protection is confronted by many political, economic, and social problems. In the case regarding Whaling in the Antarctic, (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) in March 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided that the Japanese whaling programme in the Antarctic (JARPA II, in force since 2005) did not consider as a “scientific research objectives.” In this perspective, the Court concluded that the catching, taking and killing of whales under this programme did not qualify as an exemption provided in the Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1964), which authorizes the contracting parties the capture of whales for scientific research purposes. The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze the ICJ’s judgment in this case and to demonstrate the opportunities and challenges of this judgment in the progressive development of international environmental law.

Key concepts: Whaling, International court, Political science, Law, International law, Economic Justice, Convention, Public international law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Legal Analysis of the judgment of the International Court of Justice on the Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) — Research Paper | ScholarLens