Commercial Whaling: A Brief Explanation and a Call for Better Legal Solutions

Every year, over 2,000 whales are killed due to commercial whaling. While this may not seem like a large number, the major issue is that many of these whales are a part of an endangered species. Despite a Convention that is already in place, three countries still allow commercial whaling. Overall, better legal solutions are needed to protect whale populations, particularly endangered ones.

To help conserve whale populations, in 1946, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was created and the International Whaling Commission (“IWC”) was formed as a result of that Convention. The IWC itself has 88 member governments. In addition, this “Convention includes a legally binding Schedule which . . . sets out catch limits for commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling.” The IWC can amend these limits, and, in 1986, the IWC banned commercial whaling. This action is commonly known as the commercial whaling moratorium.

Despite the 1986 moratorium, Japan, Iceland, and Norway have continued to allow commercial whaling. Japan, for example, argues that Japanese commercial whaling falls under a Convention loophole that allows commercial whaling when it is done for scientific purposes.

Both Norway and Iceland, which are members of the IWC, protest the moratorium. Norway, for example, followed the IWC ban until 1993 when it set limits on commercial whaling, but Norway allowed the practice to continue. Similarly, in 1992, Iceland withdrew from the IWC, joined the IWC in 2004, and continued commercial whaling starting in 2006. In 2010, commercial whalers in Iceland, for example, have killed and shipped 750 tons of product made from whale meat to Japan. This is a serious matter since commercial whalers in Iceland tend to go after Minke and Fin whales, and, in 2010, Icelandic commercial whalers killed 148 Fin whales, which are endangered. Overall, these three countries also argue that they should be allowed to perform commercial whaling because of their countries’ histories in whaling, despite the ban.

Several solutions have been offered to further protect whaling populations from commercial whaling, despite these three countries’ continual practice. For instance, as she discusses in an article for Arizona State University, Dr. Leah Gerber, a marine conservation biologist at Arizona State University, argues that monitoring and regulations could curb the number of whales killed each year due to commercial whaling. For example, Dr. Gerber argues that commercial whaling does not severely harm all whale populations, but some populations, such as one population of Minke whales (in the Sea of Japan, Yellow Sea, and East China Seas), have been negatively impacted by commercial whaling. In contrast, animal rights groups tend to call for trade sanctions, but this approach may be too difficult, because of the economic impact of commercial whaling on these countries’ economies. Because of this impact, trade sanctions may be too harsh and unnecessarily harm these countries’ economies.

However, stricter enforcement needs to be put in place. Iceland and Norway already report commercial whaling numbers to the IWC. For example, in 2013, Norway was responsible for commercial whaling of 594 whales, and Iceland was responsible for 169. Because Japan is allows commercial whaling due to a legal loophole, the simplest solution would be to eliminate the loophole in the Convention that allows for scientific research. While this could be a slippery slope, closing the loophole could prevent commercial whaling or, at a minimum, reduce commercial whaling. While Norway and Iceland protest the moratorium and provide commercial whaling numbers, the IWC should place greater restrictions on commercial whaling limits, at a minimum. For example, perhaps the Convention could be modified to place even greater limits on the number of whales killed by commercial whaling in Norway, Iceland, and Japan. No matter what the solution, more attention needs to be drawn to this issue, and legal steps are needed to reduce commercial whaling, if not completely eliminate it.

Kelci Scirrotto is a 3L and a senior editor of the Journal of Law and International Affairs at the Penn State University Dickinson School of Law.

---

Citations to articles & documents are included in the aforementioned underlined hyperlinks.