Une catastrophe annoncée

Gillespie, Nick; Postel-Vinay, Olivier

doi:10.3917/books.049.0025

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…53 Furthermore, voting practices have been less than honourable on occasion, with votes-for-aid suspected of having underwritten the passage of numerous IWC pronouncements. 54 Notwithstanding a broad commitment towards consensus, 55 extensive abstentions and opposition suggest that resulting IWC Resolutions do not always reflect a reliable record of the collective mind-set.…”

Section: Margins Of Appreciation and International Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science Friction: Antarctic Research Whaling and the International Court of Justice

Caddell

2014

Journal of Environmental Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whaling remains one of the most controversial and divisive aspects of the modern regulation of marine resources. In 1982, the International Whaling Commission, the global management body responsible for the regulation of whale stocks, instituted a moratorium on commercial hunting, which has been in force for almost 20 years. Nevertheless, a number of legal avenues exist within the current international regulatory framework to facilitate a degree of continued hunting. The most contentious of these is the scientific research exemption advanced under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946, which provides for the national authorization of permits for lethal research. Japan has undertaken a significant programme of scientific whaling in Antarctica since 1987, despite widespread international criticism and an escalating campaign of nautical obstruction by militant activists, duly generating a long-standing legal dispute with Australia. On 31 March 2014, judgment was rendered by the International Court of Justice, in favour of Australia, ordering Japan to cease and desist its Antarctic whaling programme and refuting Japanese assertions that these activities had been legitimately conducted 'for the purposes of scientific research' as permitted under the 1946 Convention.

show abstract

Section: Margins Of Appreciation and International Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science Friction: Antarctic Research Whaling and the International Court of Justice

Caddell

2014

Journal of Environmental Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Une catastrophe annoncée

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Science Friction: Antarctic Research Whaling and the International Court of Justice

Science Friction: Antarctic Research Whaling and the International Court of Justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About