Background

The opposition to Norwegian whaling policy is particularly prominent in connection with the work of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and often implicated in proceedings related to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The IWC was founded on the basis of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling of 1946 (ICRW), with the dual purpose of 1) providing for the proper conservation of whale stocks, and thus 2) to make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. For those purposes, and in accordance with the ICRW, it is stated that the IWC shall manage the whale stocks based on scientific advice, taking into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry. The number of IWC members has increased from the initial 15 to well above 40 today, of which only a few take an actual interest in whaling. CITES, which was established in 1975, is responsible for the regulation of the international trade in endangered species. More than 150 countries have joined this convention. According to CITES, certain whale species are regarded as endangered without any scientific basis. This is against the rules of this convention.

New arguments are opportunistically infused into the debate on whaling, as old and well-worn arguments are refuted. These arguments have developed in such a way that they have become ethically problematic. It is therefore well worth taking a closer look at the current debate on whaling, to ponder the broadening ethical dilemmas and logical inconsistencies which these arguments now present.