Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: Understanding the dispute by a matrix

Morishita, Joji

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2006.02.005

Cited by 35 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, the whalers today continue to insist that their proposals for inspection and enforcement are adequate. The problems with this were summarized by Clapham et al (2007) in a response to a pro-whaling article published by Morishita (2006): "Morishita tells us that existing international and domestic oversight procedures 'are adequate to ensure sustainable whaling' and that the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) 24 'has not been agreed by the IWC because of delaying tactics of anti-whaling governments.' Yet one of the biggest delays in implementation of the RMS has arisen from the refusal of Japan and other whaling nations to accept true transparency in the monitoring of whaling.…”

Section: Conclusion: Lessons For Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Too Much Is Never Enough: The Cautionary Tale of Soviet Illegal Whaling

Ivashchenko

Clapham

2014

MFR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Conclusion: Lessons For Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Too Much Is Never Enough: The Cautionary Tale of Soviet Illegal Whaling

Ivashchenko

Clapham

2014

MFR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since 1987, Japan has killed almost 10,000 whales in its two scientific whaling programs in the Antarctic and North Pacific; this is more than four and a half times the total number killed for research by all other nations combined since 1952. 1 In addition, as we note at the conclusion of this response, there is much more at stake for Japan on the whaling issue than the catching of whales.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…In an article that purports to offer a multiple analysis view of the whaling dispute, Joji Morishita [1] gives the Government of Japan's (GOJ) position on whaling as if it were incontestable fact. Morishita's article is in some respects a useful exposition of the elements of the whaling debate and of the changing political environment within the International whaling commission (IWC) from the 1960s to the present day.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The whaling issue: Conservation, confusion, and casuistry

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morishita's ''multiple analysis'' of the whaling issue [Morishita J. Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: Understanding the dispute by a matrix. Marine Policy 2006;30:802-8] is essentially a restatement of the Government of Japan's whaling policy, which confuses the issue through selective use of data, unsubstantiated facts, and the vilification of opposing perspectives. Here, we deconstruct the major problems with Morishita's article and provide an alternative view of the whaling dispute. For many people in this debate, the issue is not that some whales are not abundant, but that the whaling industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself or to honestly assess the status of potentially exploitable populations. This suspicion has its origin in Japan's poor use of science, its often implausible stock assessments, its insistence that culling is an appropriate way to manage marine mammal populations, and its relatively recent falsification of whaling and fisheries catch data combined with a refusal to accept true transparency in catch and market monitoring. Japanese policy on whaling cannot be viewed in isolation, but is part of a larger framework involving a perceived right to secure unlimited access to global marine resources. Whaling is inextricably tied to the international fisheries agreements on which Japan is strongly dependent; thus, concessions made at the IWC would have potentially serious ramifications in other fora. r

show abstract

“…One need only examine the political quagmire emerging from analogous washing tactics employed by opponents (Kalland 1993) and proponents (Hirata 2005) of the commercial whaling industry (Morishita 2006, Clapham et al 2007. Indeed, the International Whaling Commission and its associated members provide poignant reminders of how impotent international policy can become when science takes a back seat to marketing in biodiversity and natural-resource management (Aron et al 2000, Schweder 2001, Herrera & Hoagland 2006.…”

Section: Challenging the Dichotomymentioning

confidence: 99%