1) See, e.g., World Conservation Strategy, IUCN-UNEP-WWF (1980); World Charter for Nature, U.N. A/Res/37/7 (Nov. 9, 1982); Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), TIAS §249 (Mar. 3, l973); U.N. Conv. on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), A/CONF. 62/122 (Oct. 7, l982).

2) TIAS 1894 (Dec. 2, l946). The ICRW was implemented in the U.S. by the Whaling Convention Act of 1949. 16 USC §916 et. seq.

3) Id. at the Preamble.

4) ICRW, Schedule 10(e).

5) Rept., IWC Sci. Comm. (1993); Whale Management Under the IWC Rev. Mgt. Proceed., Butterworth, Dr. D., Intern’l. Sem Ser. on Whaling (ICR-Japan 1993); The Secretary to the IWC, Dr. Ray Gambell, observed, "[i]n all reasonableness we would have to say that a commercial catch should have been taken without endangering [minke] whales." The Times (London) (May 4, l993).

6) Supra, n. 2.

7) See, e.g., Art. III (3)(4).

8) ICRW, Schedule III(b) (Effective Dec. 6, l994).

9) U.N. Doc. CONF. 151/5. See, Agenda 21 and the UNCED Proceedings, 47-1057 (Nicholas A. Robinson ed. 1992).

10) Opinion on the Legality of the Designation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary by the IWC, Bernie, P., IWC/47 Agenda Item 13. See also, Opinion of Law, Cameron, J., IWC/47OS-FIELD. Contra, Memorandum Opinion on the Legality of the Designation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary by the IWC, Burke, W.T., IWC/47/38, Agenda Item 13; An Affront to Interna’l. Law: The Anti-Science on Commercial Whaling of Abundant Minke Whales Under the ICRW, Fein, B., Legal Aff. Council (1996).

11) Supra, n. 2.

12) Kyoto Declar. and Plan of Act., (Japan/FAO), paras. 9 and 10 (Dec. 9, l995).

13) U.N. Doc. A/CONF, 39/27 (May 23, l969); 63 Am.J.Intn’l. L. 875 (1969).

14) Id. at Art. 31(1).

15) Id. at Art. 31(3).

16) TIAS 8249 (Mar. 3 1973). CITES was implemented in the U.S. by the Endangered Species Act in 1973. 16 USC §1531 et seq.

17) 22 USC §1978.

18) 22 USC §1971 et. seq.

19) H.R. Rep. No. 468, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess. 1; 1971 U.S. Code & Admin. News 2409.

20) 22 USC §1978(a)(b).

21) Id. at §1978(a)(1)(2). "Certify" means only that a letter is written by the Secretary of Commerce or Interior to the President. See, Whaling Regulation and Packwood-Magnuson Amendments, Japan Whaling Assn. v. American Cetacean Soc’ty., 11 Suffolk Transnat’l. L.J. 287 (1987).

22) Id. at §1978(b).

23) 22USC §1978(a(4); TIAS 1700 (Oct. 30, 1947).

24) Letter from Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown to President William J. Clinton (Aug. 5, l993); Letter from Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown to President William J. Clinton (Dec. 11, l995).

25) ICRW, Art. VIII(1).

26) ICRW, Art. V(3); ICRW, Schedule, para. 6(b).

27) For example, in 1995, the U.S. issued a paper styled U.S. International Whaling Policy where it was noted that "[m]inke whales in the Antarctic appear to number about 760,000 and minke whales in the Northwest Pacific and the Sea of Okhosk appear about 25,000." Japan’s research harvest is approximately 400 minke whales. The North Atlantic minke whale population is approximately 25,000 and the harvest of Norway is under 600 per year.

28) 16 USC §1361 et seq.

29) As stated in the Report in the House of Representatives:

Witnesses urged the Committee to establish an absolute ban on U.S. imports of skins from these animals and the bill provides such a ban. H.R. Rep. No. 707, 92nd Cong., 1st Sees. (1971); 1972 U.S. Code & Admin. News 4144, 4149.

30) Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade in the Uruguay Round of Agreements. See also, Article 2.2 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures requires regulations be "based on scientific principles" and not be "maintained without sufficient scientific evidence;" GATT Art. XI(2)(c)(g)(f). For a comprehensive overview of the Uruguay Round Agreements, See, Senate Committees on Finance, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and Governmental Affairs-Joint Report on Uruguay Round Agreements act, S. Rep. 103412, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess, pp. 2-3 (1994).

31) Supra, n. 16.

32) In 1991 the Humane Society of the United States brought a legal action against the Department of Interior in an attempt to block a whitetail deer hunt scheduled to cull a herd on a National Wildlife Refuge. The court perceptively observed that the suit was "animated primarily by the plaintiffs" fundamental philosophical and public policy disagreement with the government over the wisdom, and perhaps, the morality of the sanctioned killing of wild game on public lands," Humane Soc’y. of the U.S. v. Lujan, 769 F.Supp. 360, 365 (D.DC.Cir. 1991). The Court held that such "wisdom" and "morality" cannot be substituted as to the proper use and scientific based management of a refuge.

Back to Top  |  Return to Aquatic Index  | Back |  Next Article