this law case presentation is on whaling in the Antarctic Australia versus Japan with New Zealand intervening by Amanda Tilly at some Petersburg College for the class legal ethical issues and veterinary technology in this presentation we'll start with basic definitions that we use throughout then go into what whaling is and a brief history of International Whaling Commission as well as whaling in Australia in Japan then we'll go over a general synopsis of the case detail out Australian museum's argument in the case as well as Japan's our remand defense then ruling and judgment by the court system and then my reflection of the case at the end IWC stands for International Whaling Commission a moratorium is a suspension or ending darpa to the Japanese whale research program under special permit in the Antarctic and at the second phase I see our W stands for international convention or the regulation of whaling article 8 is a portion of the ICR W that allows for killing of whales for scientific purposes and then ICJ stands for the International Court of Justice so what is wailing wailing is actually defined as the hunting of whales or meat or oil Norway Iceland and Japan began wailing an estimated 4,000 years ago and in that time all parts of the whale were used and meat was used for food blubber was melted down into oil for lamps the bone was used for corsets and hoop skirts and also for tools and implements and lastly the baleen was used in baskets and baleen is actually the plates that hang from the upper jaw of the for certain whale species that filter water and food the act like teeth the IWC was founded in 1946 but the intention of preventing whale extinctions by regulating whaling a moratorium was placed on commercial whaling by the IWC in 1986 and at that time they instituted special permitting known as scientific research permitting they also established sanctuaries in the Indian Ocean and 1979 and in the surrounding oceans of the Antarctic in 1994 Australia began whaling in the late 18th century whaling and whale product exports were the first primary industry of Australia and in the 19th century productivity increased drastically due to updated technologies such as harpoon guns and steam boat engines this increase in productivity led to the decrease of whale population and over time as the populations fell drastically it caused the collapse of the whaling industry in Australia commercial whaling actually ended in 1978 and in 1979 Australia established an anti whaling policy and began focusing on the IWC and international conservation of whaling and at this time they're currently acted in multiple committees within the IWC as I stated before Japan actually practiced small-scale whaling for centuries but commercial whaling didn't really become popular until the late 17th century they joined the IWC in 1951 but formally opposed the commercial whaling suspension the IWC put into effect in 1992 they though it retracted that objection in 1985 due to political pressures from multiple countries including the US after that they acquired special permitting for scientific research whaling in 1988 under the scientific research whaling they harvested an average of 1800 whales annually and the whales were harvested and processed at facilities with samples sent out to laboratories and those included eyes ovaries and stomach contents in 2005 Japan created DARPA - which was the second phase of jarba and in that the outlined a plan of culling over a thousand whales annually for 16 years so now that we have a little bit of historical background on both of these countries do a brief case overview before getting into the details on the next couple of slides so basically Japan's an accused of exploiting a loophole and the commercial whaling moratorium which includes abusing special permitting reaching the ICR w's article 8 and whaling in the Southern Ocean sanctuary which is the sanctuary surrounding the Antarctic there also in question of whether or not the special permitting obtained by Japan qualifies under an article 8 and whether or not the jar patoot is properly permitted for their claim of scientific research so this case began when Australia filed an application to the ICJ on May 31st of 2010 with the statement of the järva to breaching obligations soon by Japan under the ICR W and that it breached additional international obligations for the preservation for marine mammals and the marine environment some of these included the zero catch limit for commercial whaling no commercial whaling of thin whales in the southern ocean sanctuary and that they could not use factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships and the research expeditions it was also claimed that DARPA - is not used for scientific research purposes as outlined in article 8 of the ICR W initially Japan argue that the ICJ had no jurisdiction or the claim and Australia's application regarding the jarba - and that New Zealand's application to intervene alongside Osprey that have elapsed they also stated that the area used by the järva - for its scientific research whaling was close to the southern ocean sanctuary but not directly related to it and was considering that area high seas and not actual sanctuary property they also maintained that DARPA - is an 18-year scientific research program and is exempt from the constraints of the article 8 of the ICR W after hearing testimony and statements from Australia New Zealand and Japan the court ruled as follows they found that they did have the jurisdiction to review and make judgment on the application from Australia that they filed on May 31st 2010 and that the intervention of New Zealand had not lost they found that DARPA twos design and implementation were not reasonable in relation to the programs stated special permitting objectives the court felt that the scientific data that that the juror Pitou had collected was too little in comparison to the time spent on that scientific research they also felt that the Jericho 2 program had isolated themselves and their scientific findings from other countries and other organisations and lastly they did feel that jarful was in violation of Moulton areas of the ICR w with regard to the killing taking and trading of whales in the seventh ocean sanctuary while there may not be clearly drawn lines of the sanctuary the court felt that the Jarrah tube was well within the projected areas of the sanctuary and that they knew they were the final judgment of the court was that Japan must revoke all permits licenses and authorizations in relation to järva - and that they were not allowed to grant any future permits under article 8 for the durpa to the ICJ also found that it understands that members of the International Committee have divergent views on policies towards whales and whaling that are not for the court to decide or settle and they also decide that it is not for the ICJ to decide that this definition of the term scientific research as I reflect back in this case obviously the judgment in ruling is the best case scenario for this situation for the whales and for the sanctuary and the IWC as well as Australia and New Zealand of countries it's going to be significant as far as future rulings with environmental protection situations and conservation situations that go to court and I hope that this the judgment on this case helps move them forward in those cases in the future the only side note I'd like to make as well on this is that I did find in the research of this case that just a couple months ago in July of 2019 that Japan actually completely pulled themselves out of the IWC I would imagine it would be something along the lines of that they're hoping that I not being a part of the Commission that they don't have to abide by rules and regulations that the Commission put but other than that like I said I think this case pretty much went as good as it could have you